| Tuesday, August 12 2008 |
Part of a recent press-event held in New York, AMD showcased a new technology that makes rendering photo-realistic humans possible. It made game developers stand up and take note.
This technology called Cinema 2.0 makes producing photo-realistic human characters possible. It can be used in scenarios such as producing a full-on CGI movie or parts of it, where computers generate the actors' computer-animated replica that's the most photo-realistic in today's time. For example, the woman in the picture below is computer-animated. Believe it!
It works on this principle:
A model is sent into a large spherical room, walls of which have hundreds of high-definition cameras that capture the model's facial 3D contour, the data is analysed, this is used to generate real-time video renders of the person's facial expressions by the system as the face and all its features are redrawn in several facial expressions. The false-colour image you see below maps reflection and the interaction of light with the surface. A true colour image captures the model's colour features at various parts of the face. The data will be used to draw computer-rendered characters.
The big names in the gaming industry, namely Splash Damage, Crytek, Rebellion, Remedy (makers of Alan Wake Forever) and even Blizzard were noted in the presentation as partners of AMD. This technology looks close to being the way of the future, tomorrow's games will be more cinematic than ever thanks to ongoing efforts by the major players in the hardware industry also working on technologies that will drive them.
Source: Joystiq
This technology called Cinema 2.0 makes producing photo-realistic human characters possible. It can be used in scenarios such as producing a full-on CGI movie or parts of it, where computers generate the actors' computer-animated replica that's the most photo-realistic in today's time. For example, the woman in the picture below is computer-animated. Believe it!
It works on this principle:
A model is sent into a large spherical room, walls of which have hundreds of high-definition cameras that capture the model's facial 3D contour, the data is analysed, this is used to generate real-time video renders of the person's facial expressions by the system as the face and all its features are redrawn in several facial expressions. The false-colour image you see below maps reflection and the interaction of light with the surface. A true colour image captures the model's colour features at various parts of the face. The data will be used to draw computer-rendered characters.
The big names in the gaming industry, namely Splash Damage, Crytek, Rebellion, Remedy (makers of Alan Wake Forever) and even Blizzard were noted in the presentation as partners of AMD. This technology looks close to being the way of the future, tomorrow's games will be more cinematic than ever thanks to ongoing efforts by the major players in the hardware industry also working on technologies that will drive them.
Source: Joystiq
User comments
This is how games should look like.
hope they spend as much time on the storyline and gameplay, gimmi ma munnehs worth
by: robspierre6;926720
This is how games should look like.
Definitely. Now this is somethings that a 30" monitor can't do lol.
that is really really cool. and i also agree, they should hopefully be putting an equal amount of effort into story/gameplay, otherwise its a huge waste of money and not many will buy into these games.
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;926733
hope they spend as much time on the storyline and gameplay, gimmi ma munnehs worth
I'm very sure game devs will still be working closely with those parts. As graphics get more realistic, I'm sure AMD will make the software more simple to use that even the n00b devs can use it. Reason being is because if AMD's success on their Overdrive software. For many years, ATI/AMD has looked foolish in saying that their hardware will result in astonishing graphics. As of now, they have finally proved that they kept their promise :)
Which means: ATI to Nvidia: EAT $H*T :nutkick:
This is great, but did everyone forget about NV human head or something?
I think what games need now is:realistic visuals,artificial intelligent and improved physx.
Will we get that with DX11 games? "i hope so"
I believe AMD is working with MS on DX11 now. So, we'll probably taste some great games next year.
Will we get that with DX11 games? "i hope so"
I believe AMD is working with MS on DX11 now. So, we'll probably taste some great games next year.
And ends a caption contest within a news thread. Back to topic.
"hundreds of high-definition cameras"
wow, that will be super expensive
wow, that will be super expensive
Seriously though, did everyone seem to forget about nVidia's Human Head? This looks no different to me.
Lighting in that was shaded, this is ray-traced. There was still an element of artificiality with that render.
Hmm, I thought that ray-tracing was something that intel held the patent on?
As for human head being artificial looking it's over a year old now, tech is newer.
As for human head being artificial looking it's over a year old now, tech is newer.
No, Intel doesn't own ray-tracing. AMD did work extensively in this field, ATI has had hardware tesselators since the Xenos (Xbox 360 GPU, made by ATI) days (before R600)
Hmm, I guess that's what I get for trusting PC Gamer :laugh:
Look at the hair though still looks fake, close but you still can not see seprate strands. Also the poly count is rediculous, I don't there is a video card out there that can push that many poly's at a reasonable frame rate. The Shaders took over rememeber, the Triangle setup engine has taken a back seat. Id have to say while shading has increased the poly counts have not, Crysis being a notable exception. There isnt a video card out that can do this kind of 3d model and get over 10FPS.
Looks alright to me, those are individual strands drawn using pure geometry, unlike older attempts which used lame textures of hair all over the head.
but I look at it and can tell just looking at the hair its fake, there is no frizz anywhere, and I don't care how well you do your hair, even super models have the tiniest amount of frizz and thats not there. Also there is no light comming in the hair such as real hair would, you'd see viable light eminating from between the hair, every person has this attrabute also. Maybe I scrutanize to much, but if you told me it was a photo id have called it a bad photochop just based on the hair
by: OzzmanFloyd120;926829
This is great, but did everyone forget about NV human head or something?
Yeah but the NV head didn't look real...? AMD uses ray tracing (following laws in physics...and not crappy shaders) for these demos and afaik it looks TONS better. It allows for photorealistic renders.
If it wasnt for that robot out of nowhere, that would have been pretty close to being truely photorealistic.
by: candle_86;926939
but I look at it and can tell just looking at the hair its fake, there is no frizz anywhere, and I don't care how well you do your hair, even super models have the tiniest amount of frizz and thats not there. Also there is no light comming in the hair such as real hair would, you'd see viable light eminating from between the hair, every person has this attrabute also. Maybe I scrutanize to much, but if you told me it was a photo id have called it a bad photochop just based on the hair
Hair doesn't have to be glossy. It can be dull, etc. Supermodels usually are heavily photoshopped so that any small amount of frizz disappears.
look closely at the hair tell me it looks real
I took sevral photo class's in high school, and I recognize that the hair is fake, the face i could belive, the hair impossible, looked at one to many photos to buy it
I took sevral photo class's in high school, and I recognize that the hair is fake, the face i could belive, the hair impossible, looked at one to many photos to buy it
by: OzzmanFloyd120;926928
Hmm, I guess that's what I get for trusting PC Gamer :laugh:
Forgot about NVIDIA's recent acquisition of Rayscale? Ray-Tracing isn't owned by Intel, they're just using it as Kraft Cheese for Larrabee.
by: candle_86;926939Do a better job? Also I can see frizz and stuff, maybe you have bad eyes....
but I look at it and can tell just looking at the hair its fake, there is no frizz anywhere, and I don't care how well you do your hair, even super models have the tiniest amount of frizz and thats not there. Also there is no light comming in the hair such as real hair would, you'd see viable light eminating from between the hair, every person has this attrabute also. Maybe I scrutanize to much, but if you told me it was a photo id have called it a bad photochop just based on the hair
by: tkpenalty;926954When I look at that image I wonder why the bricks on the building are glossy looking, kinda makes it tough to make the realistic argument. I'm not saying it doesn't look great, because it does look awesome. I just don't think it's any better than anything I haven't seen already.
Yeah but the NV head didn't look real...? AMD uses ray tracing (following laws in physics...and not crappy shaders) for these demos and afaik it looks TONS better. It allows for photorealistic renders.
If it wasnt for that robot out of nowhere, that would have been pretty close to being truely photorealistic.
looks good enough to me and thats what really matters :D
The quality of the still (face) isn't great, however the actual face & all the details are outstanding. Candle, I honestly don't know why you say the hair is fake, it's all fake, it's CG. I think the hair looks fantastic, colleagues at work couldn't tell if it was CG or a photo. Found it really hard to judge. Even the one that practises Photography in his spare time.
by: tkpenalty;926954U r kidding, right? The only thing in this image that is NOT for real is exactly the robot that was superimposed to a real image...
If it wasnt for that robot out of nowhere, that would have been pretty close to being truely photorealistic.
Show us the real image (a photograph with natural light).
Why? I think this is why they presented this image, to show a CGI inserted in a real-life image, to show the potential.
P.S. I am not working for them (I wish...) so how can I show you the "real" image? What is not real in that image?
P.S. I am not working for them (I wish...) so how can I show you the "real" image? What is not real in that image?
You THINK. But that's not true until you come up with the exact original image (or links to a site that has it)
The other guy also thinks... Why he is right and I am not? Anyways, i don't want a debate on this matter... Just think, for example, at Transformers - the movie...
The other guy meant it still looks like a video-game, less photo-realistic (because that robot killed it) and not a photo that's morphed into a graphic. I don't want "other guy" as your source, a photo of the exact picture in real world with natural lighting or a link to such a picture.
I have to say that initially I agreed with VIPER until I looked closer at the image. It really is an excellent CGI of New York. Look at the street. NY streets are much more bumpy at the edges with all the "repairs" etc. They are also missing the street names that are on every street corner on NY. The aircons on the building on the LHS are perfectly formed and alike. The windows are all "matte reflections" without internal content. The building on the RHS, first street corner, has identical windows on the top 2 floors. There are no attachment points for the fire escape on the LHS. Depth of field (focus) too wide. Car in front 100% sharp, as is building in distance. Also incorrect modelling of vanishing point (perspective) on second building LHS. Look at the roof and each floor, they are all sloping downwards. Reason for the error? Very simple mistake often made with shadows too. (Ever seen non-parallel shadows that converge! LOL). The reason is that they are modelling the vanishing point in "2D" and "on the page" rather than as an infinity point off the page.
Excellent CGI. But missing a few details on inspection. However, completely unobservable details in movie action shot.
Excellent CGI. But missing a few details on inspection. However, completely unobservable details in movie action shot.
This is NOT a 3D depth map. It is a light map (for reflections). Plain and simple.
You're right. I'll make the edit. But the principle is the same, just this image doesn't refer to it....
...but doesn't reflection form function of ray-tracing? Refection maps are something shaders use. (?)
...but doesn't reflection form function of ray-tracing? Refection maps are something shaders use. (?)
Alan Wake Forever
Come on, that's just mean! Give Remedy a little credit, it will come.
Come on, that's just mean! Give Remedy a little credit, it will come.
by: tatuka666;927159Just some strikethrough humour :) Remember Mr. Duke Nukem?
Alan Wake Forever
Come on, that's just mean! Give Remedy a little credit, it will come.
Remedy is better known for Max Paynes so IMO referring to that would be better than Alan Wake :)
I know. I want Alan Wake. Fast. Amazing how in MP2 using just SM 1.4 they could create visuals on par/ better than some SM 2.0 titles.
by: robspierre6;926720but you need nvidia gtx 980 or gtx 960 or ati 9870 or 9850 to can run games like this
This is how games should look like.
by: VIPER;927035its not real look at the brciks on the building they have a CG look to them they are glossy and take a look at the cars...
U r kidding, right? The only thing in this image that is NOT for real is exactly the robot that was superimposed to a real image...
also take notice to how its the same 3 cars just with colors changed. the F150's/G6's appear to use the photorealism tech done with the HD cams but the taxicab isn't a real vehicle and is repeated up the road...
by: cdawall;927500
also take notice to how its the same 3 cars just with colors changed. the F150's/G6's appear to use the photorealism tech done with the HD cams but the taxicab isn't a real vehicle and is repeated up the road...
You underestimate the popularity of the Ford F150 and the Pontiac G6. :laugh:
And I don't know about you, but just because I walk down a city street and see lots of the same kinds of card, I don't go, "Yep, this reality is obviously photoshopped -- I can tell, just look at this line here..." :p
by: mdm-adph;927513look up the street and you can see the same maroon F150 in the same spot to the left o the the yellow taxi cab
You underestimate the popularity of the Ford F150 and the Pontiac G6. :laugh:
And I don't know about you, but just because I walk down a city street and see lots of the same kinds of card, I don't go, "Yep, this reality is obviously photoshopped -- I can tell, just look at this line here..." :p
and be honest the buildings look fake they are glossy?
Ray-tracing has a good future, but Cinema 2.0's future is clean as a whistle as long as they skip some shaders. This is what I hate about shaders, they look good however they don't scale well with the background and they use up too many resources, which is why Crysis is taking longer to resolve than expected. Right now, in those photos, the shaders are only being put on props and characters, such as the cars, windows, and Ruby if you look more closely in the gallery at the website. Textures have an excelling role at the background and in some cases the robot, which are cleverly disguised with motion blur and anistropics. As for the lighting, that glare from the robot's "eye" could be good ol' transparent 2D entities. With these rather clever methods, Cinema 2.0 should show up in dev's in no time once this DX10 crap ends for good. In the meantime, I'm keeping close watch on too many promises from companies.
by: lemonadesoda;927074not only all of that, but the lines on the street blur as they go back rather quickly actully, signs of 4x AF there. Also the details in the building behind it are lacking the depth and quality of the foreground.
I have to say that initially I agreed with VIPER until I looked closer at the image. It really is an excellent CGI of New York. Look at the street. NY streets are much more bumpy at the edges with all the "repairs" etc. They are also missing the street names that are on every street corner on NY. The aircons on the building on the LHS are perfectly formed and alike. The windows are all "matte reflections" without internal content. The building on the RHS, first street corner, has identical windows on the top 2 floors. There are no attachment points for the fire escape on the LHS. Depth of field (focus) too wide. Car in front 100% sharp, as is building in distance. Also incorrect modelling of vanishing point (perspective) on second building LHS. Look at the roof and each floor, they are all sloping downwards. Reason for the error? Very simple mistake often made with shadows too. (Ever seen non-parallel shadows that converge! LOL). The reason is that they are modelling the vanishing point in "2D" and "on the page" rather than as an infinity point off the page.
Excellent CGI. But missing a few details on inspection. However, completely unobservable details in movie action shot.
Great! Now back on topic please and no name calling.:rolleyes:
This is nothing new, it's just being promoted to the world by AMD/ATI now :). Just look at the research of Paul Debevec (one of the creators of LightStage) at his page. You may recognize few of the projects - ATI made a real-time tech demo for 9800 series out of one. And another for x1000 cards.
Also visit these pages related to Cinema 2.0 now:
http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/FaceScanning/
http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/LS5/
Check these videos out and you will see the same girl from the pictures AMD posted:
LS5_Siggraph_052005.avi
LS5_ET_HD_H264.mov
Also visit these pages related to Cinema 2.0 now:
http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/FaceScanning/
http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/LS5/
Check these videos out and you will see the same girl from the pictures AMD posted:
LS5_Siggraph_052005.avi
LS5_ET_HD_H264.mov
It may not be uber awesome, but I mean, dayum, its awesome nonetheless. Very Impressive AMD/ATI.
Please, let our comments go to AMD Cinema 2.0 and all that's in the news. News comments for the win.
by: candle_86;927611I just can't help but think of this:
not only all of that, but the lines on the street blur as they go back rather quickly actully, signs of 4x AF there. Also the details in the building behind it are lacking the depth and quality of the foreground.
[Source]
Seriously, stop the hating on AMD -- this technology looks amazing, just admit it. It's okay to say that about the "other team" once in a while -- I personally like AMD chips better, but I admit Intel's research into high-k technology is cool as hell, and eagerly await 32nm chips. See how it works? :p
I don't admint that it isn't cool, I simply state that its not perfect, I wasn't around here when the human head showed up, but honestly I didn't like it either. Photo Realism to me, means photo realism, and this nor Nvidia are quite there. Its almost photo realistic but has a long way to go
by: mdm-adph;928891That's funny!
I just can't help but think of this:
[Source]
Seriously, stop the hating on AMD -- this technology looks amazing, just admit it. It's okay to say that about the "other team" once in a while -- I personally like AMD chips better, but I admit Intel's research into high-k technology is cool as hell, and eagerly await 32nm chips. See how it works? :p
:rockout:
by: cdawall;927500Uhm dude sorry to tell you this but the taxi`s are different ,The one in the foreground has different taillights.Also the the farthest taxi has red jeep Wrangler parked beside it.And how do you explain the 86 Chevy Cav in front of the right side G6 ?
its not real look at the brciks on the building they have a CG look to them they are glossy and take a look at the cars...
also take notice to how its the same 3 cars just with colors changed. the F150's/G6's appear to use the photorealism tech done with the HD cams but the taxicab isn't a real vehicle and is repeated up the road...
by: lemonadesoda;927075looks more like uvwarp
This is NOT a 3D depth map. It is a light map (for reflections). Plain and simple.
