piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) (05/19/89)
To change the topic a little.... This is not to discuss the merits/demerits of porn. That belongs to one of the soc... groups. But this topic got me to thinking. How many folks remember "Fritz the Cat"? It was an animated X-rated movie. Every year computer animation improves. How long will it be before it is possible to make a blue movie without cameras or actors? After all, the acting in most blue movies is so wooden, I'm sure a computer could do it as well. Imagine a video box that said "No actors" instead of "No actors under age 18." Does anyone want to hazard a guess on how many years it will be before technology reaches this point. (I'd guess 25 years, myself.) One thing I'm sure of, unless the human race changes a whole bunch, there will come a day when computer generated picuters of sex look like the real thing and they will be on the market. Of course there are other applications for such advanced graphics, med student training comes to mind right off the bat. Boy, the future is going to be real interesting. R. Piner
myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) (05/20/89)
>"No actors" instead of "No actors under age 18." Does anyone >want to hazard a guess on how many years it will be before >technology reaches this point. (I'd guess 25 years, myself.) 25 years is a little high, I think. As an example, the kind of image quality shown in "Tin Toy" or other recent computer-generated films is probably high enough for a "saleable" product of this nature; it's just not practical yet for a X-rated movie producer to invest the $/time required fror something like this when live "talent" (?) is so available and a cheap movie or video camera is just that. All that's needed. though, is for the cost of the hardware to drop and the speed rise just a little. My guess is somewhere around 10 years out. (10 years ago, when I started with HP, the 9845B desktop computer (anybody remember those?) was our top of the line, and a graphics machine like the TurboSRX wasn't even a glimmer in some crazy engineer's eye. Now, think where we'll be by 1999!) There was a movie a few years back that dealt with just this issue; I can't remember the title right now, but it starred (among others) Susan Dey, and was based on some Big Evil Corporation scanning live actresses, then using their computer-animated images to produce films (mostly commercials). The actresses weren't needed then. of course, and were killed off. Not a great flick, but possibly a good prediction of where the technology may be taking us. (Although hopefully without bumping off the talent! :-)) Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other {the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | sentient life-form on this planet.
sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher) (05/20/89)
In article <2272@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: > To change the topic a little.... > This is not to discuss the merits/demerits of porn. That belongs to > one of the soc... groups. But this topic got me to thinking. How > many folks remember "Fritz the Cat"? It was an animated X-rated > movie. Every year computer animation improves. How long will it > be before it is possible to make a blue movie without cameras or actors? > After all, the acting in most blue movies is so wooden, I'm sure > a computer could do it as well. Imagine a video box that said > "No actors" Take a look at "The Art of Computer Animation," at a video store near you (well, I found one near me). In the first segment, the behaviorally animated flock of birds and school of fish were described as "the first computer-generated extras" by the producer of the segment, Michael Wahrman. He has gone on to produce the first real-time animated talking head, demonstrated last year. > instead of "No actors under age 18." Does anyone > want to hazard a guess on how many years it will be before > technology reaches this point. (I'd guess 25 years, myself.) You haven't seen a collection of SIGGRAPH demos recently, have you? The issue is not technology. Right now, there are three basic problems with this level of computer animation: 1. The biggest problem is that it's very hard to realistically simulate human motion, simply because it's something that we all intuitively recognize when we see it. There have been some successful attempts: check Philippe Bergeron's "Tony de Peltrie" (the piano player) sometime. But animation of human beings--with weight, natural movements, and all the subtleties of realism--is still very hard to do. Note that it isn't really a technological issue either--it's an artistic one, primarily. This is why lamps, fish and birds, chrome dinosaurs etc. are such successful subjects for CGI animation: I've never seen a desk lamp jump on a ball and pop it, so when I see Lasseter's animation of that, it's got enough realism to satisfy me. (On the other hand, I have seen flocks of birds flying in formation, which is one reason why Craig Reynolds' behavioral animation is so impressive.) Oh, and by the way: realistic animation of human motion isn't limited to computer animation. It's common to all animation (cel, model, clay--Mr. Bill just isn't quite as graceful as Baryshnikov.) Doing it right isn't necessarily impossible, just very very hard. 2. Time, money, machines. Making a computer-animated film is time-consuming, even with the fastest boxes available (ahem). Having been involved (albeit a couple of years ago, and not with the people up in the organization line above) with the production of a short SIGGRAPH film, I can assure you that there is an awful lot of work for very talented people to do just to make it happen. Doing it right is barely possible today, but it would take a huge effort of very talented and expensive people, not to mention some not exactly cheap equipment. 3. The people who could do it--and I've mentioned 3 or 4 people out of the many who have the technical skill to do a realistic animated film--all have better things to do than make X-rated CGI film. > One thing I'm sure of, unless the human race changes a whole bunch, > there will come a day when computer generated picuters of sex > look like the real thing and they will be on the market. > Of course there are other applications for such advanced graphics, > med student training comes to mind right off the bat. Boy, the > future is going to be real interesting. The present isn't so bad either. Try to make it to Boston this August, you might see a few things that surprise you.
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (05/20/89)
In article <2272@pur-phy> piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: >movie. Every year computer animation improves. How long will it >be before it is possible to make a blue movie without cameras or actors? >[ ... ] (I'd guess 25 years, myself.) Way too pessimistic. Try *right now* for near-realism (look at Tin Toy...in terms of near-realism, that is, not as a candidate for...oh never mind; what sick minds! :-) For photographic realism, less than three years. That's for "possible". My guess for when it will be *inevitable* is 5 years. Given hardware performance curves, clearly the only tricky part is how to synthetically generate dialog as dumb as that in porno movies. Even "Eliza" sounded smarter than that! Of course, you could always cheat and use human voiceovers. Seriously, things like natural body motions are hard...er, difficult, but as previously stated, porn stars are pretty wooden and unnatural- seeming most of the time anyway. And with some serious work in that area I'd expect the simulated actors to outperform real ones quite easily. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
ericl@masscomp.UUCP (Eric Law) (05/22/89)
In regards to a previous posting about Susan Dey versus the Evil Advertising Agency... The movie you mention is called LOOKER. The actual computer animated parts of the film are few, but the idea of recreating actors with computer is central to the plot. It was a very interesting film... -Eric S. Law
andrea@hp-sdd.hp.com (Andrea K. Frankel) (05/23/89)
In article <470003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: >There was a movie a few years back that dealt with just this issue; I can't >remember the title right now, but it starred (among others) Susan Dey, >and was based on some Big Evil Corporation scanning live actresses, then >using their computer-animated images to produce films (mostly commercials). >The actresses weren't needed then. of course, and were killed off. Along similar lines, the novel *Little Heroes* by Norman Spinrad features some interesting computer-based media personalities. Very fun read for computer folks, especially if you're into rock music and/or SF...some fun with graphics, but really multimedia in approach. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) CSNET : andrea%hp-sdd@hplabs.csnet USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
mjb@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Michael Beaton) (05/25/89)
In article <33234@sgi.SGI.COM> sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher) writes: >In article <2272@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: ... >> movie. Every year computer animation improves. How long will it >> be before it is possible to make a blue movie without cameras or actors? ... >Take a look at "The Art of Computer Animation," at a video store >near you (well, I found one near me). In the first segment, the ... >You haven't seen a collection of SIGGRAPH demos recently, have you? ... >The issue is not technology. Right now, there are three basic >problems with this level of computer animation: >1. The biggest problem is that it's very hard to realistically > simulate human motion, simply because it's something that ... (What's been done on this?) ... >3. The people who could do it--and I've mentioned 3 or 4 people ... >The present isn't so bad either. Try to make it to Boston this >August, you might see a few things that surprise you. Nice letter, this. So, who in the States caught 'Max Headroom'... a T.V. show set 20 mins. into the future about ace reporter Edison Carter ('coming to you live and direct') from channel 23, and his computer generated alter ego, Max Headroom (see first prog. for an explanation of the name). That show involved a human pretending to be a computer, pretending to be a human, which just goes to show what technology can do for you if you really try. And how about 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert A.Heinlein, Mike (for Mycroft, and again the name has an interesting derivation...) runs everything on the moon, and he's a computer... one day they plug in that one extra circuit board and he becomes conscious, and with a little help from his friends he also becomes the leader the Underground Movement to free the Moon from Earth's tyranny, and not as a computer but by generating a comp.graphics body for himself! Hope I'm there too! How long will all this be? And which newsgroup should I be on!? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mjb@uk.ac.ed.aipna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------