Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Goodbye Uncanny Valley
kottke.org: For years, the idea of the uncanny valley has dominated computer graphics. Computers were powerful enough to produce real-ish looking people, places, or things but not quite powerful enough to make audiences believe they were actually real…to the point where they’re actually kind of creepy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I recall when the first mock-ups of the Play Station 4's graphics capabilities were first released. I was absolutely blown away! Individual strands of hair could move independently, just as in real life. No longer would I have to suspend my belief in relaity to immerse myself in a videogame. Though I've never heard this concept of advancing computer graphics called the 'Uncanny Valley', I find it rings true in my head. Looking at graphics from videogames in the early to mid-2000s, there was always something a little off about characters. However, even these models look significantly more 'real' than those of previous years. For example, compare Super Smash Brothers: Melee with Super Smash Brothers 4. In Melee, which was released in 2001, the characters, many of whom are animated to begin with, look disjointed and awkward. Fast forward 13 years, many of the characters look like they were ripped right from the original content.
I've kind of always been conflicted on the idea of the uncanny valley, because I can't really recall an instance where I have been creeped out by something that has been "human like". What I like about this video is that it legitimizes the concept of the uncanny valley, which is something I've been on the fence about, but also goes on to explain why we may not necessarily experience it in the same way that we used to. Graphical developments in video games as well as developments in robotics have made it incredibly easy for us to create very human like experiences with non human facades without the level of creepiness that came out of the small differences between the fake human and our perception of what helps us to determine what a real human looks like. However, I also don't know if the uncanny valley, as a theory, ever claimed that any representation of a human would cause us to feel unsettled, but just that in certain instances it CAN.
This was probably one of the best green page articles I have ever read/watched. The fascinating part is how it puts everything into perspective. By using the Uncanny valley they are putting it into terms that the general public will understand. I find so often that people don’t actually understand the capability of CGI and what it can actually achieve. I was having a conversation earlier today and was talking about how I would have liked to grow up in a simpler world. CGI and computer graphics are only one topic that this video touched upon, it also talks about machine learning and the capabilities of rendering software. It is understandable that people find this to be so cool I mean common, it’s basically another world on a screen. As a closing statement, I would just like to say that I am actually a bit scared to see what is to come out of the future of computer animation.
This video was really interesting. One of the most interesting points was the idea of visual images being so easily faked that images are never convincingly real. Photos or even videos wouldn’t be sufficient proof that something happened. I also found the discussion of “the wilderness” to be very interesting. That section of the video, made me start to think about how the history of CGI seems to be remarkable similar to the history of paintings. Painting weren’t initially particularly realistic and then people began to learn how to create the illusion of perspective, accurate proportions, and so on. Eventually as realistic as possible became the standard of what was considered “good art”. Painting that were as much as possible not paint. Then as a response to that movements like impressionism and surrealism began to create paintings were it was not realistic, or where the paint itself was a clear visible part of the art. I suppose we tend to act a certain way in response to tools to create art, regardless of what the tool is.
Post a Comment