Tech Predictions From 10 Years Ago Today

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know, I absolutely love our 10 Years Ago Today button. Without it, I wouldn't even have remembered this quote:

Dan Vivoli said that this kit should permit the replication of certain effects used in CG movies, in real time on NVIDIA's next 3D chip (NV30). He has also stated that graphics cards available in 5 to 10 years will reproduce any CG movie.
 
they were talking about this kinda thing alot back then, remember when nvidia announced their next gfx card with steve jobs candidly talking about a pixar movie (toy story 1,2, bugs life) being rendered as you watch by you computer. think john carmack was on stage with him.

if all the "to the metal" talk from 2 years is any thing to go by then possibly this prediction is true. who knows
 
they are right, however, it just makes the artist push the artwork and rendering even more.
 
I think he meant it slowed down game development.

Most games now adays are designed to run on a console, so they must sacrifice quality and other things that would otherwise be possible on a PC.
 
Console ports didn't slow down hardware development. We still have $1000+ video cards and 4 way SLI.

....this article was primarily about software, and tools. Consoles, have slowed down those. If we didn't have consoles we'd probably have UE4 games running already. You seen the UE4 demo? Looks damn near CGI to me. Imagine them having a year, or two, to improve it further.
 
they are right, however, it just makes the artist push the artwork and rendering even more.

You are right to an extent. There have certainly been some phenominal movies come out in the last several years in regards to the artwork. James Cameron's Avatar and Final Fantasy VII Advent Children (Complete) have probably been the most recent best 2 examples of really pushing modern technology. This is what I like seeing.

But by and large I think alot of the use of technology has just allowed more of a "cut and paste" type mentality where you just use "explosion plugin #52" on "Spacecraft plugin 37".

I look back at when artist had to physically create each thing seen on screen and it feels like since they had to spend alot more time with the project and they made damn sure it was for a good reason. I really like the hand drawn animations such as Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa (really any Miyazaki / Studio Ghibli film), Akira, and even the pre-2000's Disney movies. The artwork was fantastic (if you appreciate such things), but the movies themselves had some basis.

Even going back to the 80's with animatronix like The Dark Crystal, you could really appreciate the extreme level of detail that was put into these films on a personal level.

In hand-drawn animations and animatronix every single pixel or object you see what not only created by a person, but all the movements and expressions were also planned out in someones head. CGI allows all of those things to be auto filled.
 
There are more studios using cheaper labor but it is still very much hands on with every shot. If there was a magic red button a lot of cg would look better and the industry would be a fraction the size it is.

There have been shots were the CG looked better than the practical model and most people simply assume that it was a practical shot even if they don't know what that means. Avatar had some cool CG in it but most people think of it as CG because a lot of people said it was. Most people don't realize good CG set extensions because good CG looks like it was shot at the location it is faking.

I know there was drape hanging out a window in CSI that had to be built as CGI because the real thing looked fake/wrong. That happens a lot more than normal people will ever know.
 
I went outside today... the graphics sucked. Fact is, they may have been right but failed to recognize the fact that "if you build it, they will come" and that if you quintuple your processing power or internet speed or whatever, people will quickly find ways to use it and max it out.
 
Back
Top