Computer Technology Question (Virtual Imagery)

[dsm]

How many more years do you think it will take before computer-generated images in movies will be undetectable?

They do a good job with inanimate objects, but with something that is alive or flowing (like hair, or water) the technology just isn't there yet. About the best I've seen was in one of the Matrix movies. The one where Neo fights a bunch of agent Smiths. It was good, but still looked cartoonish. Another example would be the computer-generated ocean scenes in the movie The Perfect Storm, the water just looks cartoonish to me. Also I just saw a commercial for a King Kong remake that's about to be released. It showed a digital Kong from the waste down, and the fur looks cartoonish.

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
How many more years do you think it will take before computer-generated images (of people) in movies will be undetectable?

[/ QUOTE ]

My unprofessional guess would be 10 or 15 years, maybe 20.

About two years ago I saw this baseball video game at a computer store, and for more than a few seconds I was fooled by the players on the field. The players looked almost real, I was very impressed. I asked the guy how long it would be before you couldn't tell the difference between digital images of people and real people. Very confidently he said, "Two Years." Well it's two years later and I think most people can still tell the difference.

[Macdaddy Warsaw]

They could probably do it now, but it's just too much work. It'd probably be at least 10 more years before they could do it in the same timeframe as they do decent looking CGI now.

[TStoneMBD]

i have thought about this, and have wondered if the movie industry will ever come to a point in which it no longer uses actors to make movies but only graphics instead. a problem with this idea is that many people enjoy watching movies about actors they admire or have crushes on, and people wont feel the same way about things if they are watching a digitally created fake person. as a result, i think it is more likely that technology takes movie companies to a place where they take famous actors, copy every detail about them, and use their likeness in movies rather than the actors themselves. as a result, the movie industry will be able to generate even larger profits from their productions. however, there is nothing stopping other industries from producing movies with actual actors instead of their likeness, generating less profits, but potentially making higher box office hits than the industries using digital imagry only. if the likeness of actors can be duplicated easily and have it applicable to every movie situation, movies in general are likely to be of greater quality than movies with actual actors. having actual people in a scene makes shooting that scene more difficult, and there is less room for thinking outside of the box. it really all depends on what audiences find acceptable in movies and whether they prefer seeing actual actors, their likeness, and whether that even matters at all to them.