[HN Gopher] Hyper-realistic digital humans in Unity
___________________________________________________________________
Hyper-realistic digital humans in Unity
Author : Naracion
Score : 222 points
Date : 2022-03-22 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (unity.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (unity.com)
| pistachiopro wrote:
| This is indeed rendered in realtime, but one thing to note is
| it's a "4D" capture, more-or-less meaning each frame of the
| animation is its own asset. This makes it possible to reproduce
| subtle physics like the lips sticking together slightly when the
| actor opens her mouth. The amount of storage space, alone, makes
| this impractical for anything other than demos. Unity claims they
| will be able to achieve this level of fidelity using a deep
| learning-based compression that will allow stuff like this to
| appear in game cutscenes, but all the movements will still be
| pre-baked. The only interaction possible will be moving the
| camera. At that point the technology will be very useful, but
| it's still a ways away from having such a realistic character
| that can react to you dynamically.
|
| (Though whether that's just a couple years of software technology
| progress, or a decade+ for hardware progress, who can say?)
| zokier wrote:
| They also say
|
| > Tension tech for blood flow simulation and wrinkle maps,
| eliminating the need for a facial rig for fine details
|
| Which sounds like it is not 100% prebaked animation?
| pistachiopro wrote:
| The geometry is fully pre-baked, but wrinkle and blood
| details respond in realtime to the pre-baked geometry.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| If it's only for cutscenes why not just have a video?
| andybak wrote:
| This is a fair point.
| softfalcon wrote:
| Cause they want to push the limits and make their engine look
| amazing. Also, if they research hard enough, in-game becomes
| nearly as good as video to the point you can't tell.
|
| One baby step at a time.
| Jare wrote:
| Cutscenes work a lot better (more immersive) if they can
| correctly reflect runtime-defined assets, e.g. your own
| character with your customizations, gear and clothes, etc, or
| the dynamic state of the environment in which gameplay was
| happening: destruction debris, current time of day, and such.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| So, essentially super fancy sprites?
|
| _chuckles_
| NHQ wrote:
| Movement won't be pre-baked, a physics engine sim will be baked
| in to the neural network, and movements will be another
| dimension for the deep learning network. And then all of that
| will be baked into an agent that has been trained to carry out
| motives (with a simulation of your character, etc). The same
| applies to speech as movement. And the deep-learned compression
| rate will be magnificent.
| kingcharles wrote:
| [citation required]
| dylan604 wrote:
| >achieve this level of fidelity using a deep learning-based
| compression
|
| what does that mean? To me, they might have just as well said
| middle out compression.
| pistachiopro wrote:
| Unity recently acquired Ziva, which specializes in the
| detailed animation of humans and other animals. They were
| known for their (not realtime) physics-based solutions, but
| now they have an ML model for faces, apparently. As far as I
| know, it's still in beta and not widely available. Unity says
| they will re-release this demo with the Ziva face in a matter
| of weeks and the quality will be even higher. And possibly
| allowing interactivity as well?? I guess we'll see in a few
| weeks.
| greysphere wrote:
| I'd guess a 4d version of:
| https://paperswithcode.com/method/nerf
| lagrange77 wrote:
| I guess this means dimensionality reduction for example with
| the use of a convolutional autoencoder.
| motoboi wrote:
| Superresolution. You have a lower resolution animation (less
| pixels = less calculations) and then use superresolution to
| turn that into a 4K image. This is reality right now for
| NVIDIA GPUs ( I think it's called DMSS)
| pistachiopro wrote:
| Nvidia DLSS is an important part of how they achieved 30Hz
| at 4k resolution, but that's more of a shading assist and
| doesn't affect the animation. The facial animation will be
| compressed with Ziva's ML solution.
| subpixel wrote:
| aka "enhance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
| cma wrote:
| They are talking about compressed geometry, not pixels.
| This is more similar to alembic and other geometry
| streaming tech
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alembic_(computer_graphics)
|
| There is one out there from 5 years ago or so that is
| similar to Google's Seurat but for animated stuff, I think
| pre-baking triangle culling for different views within a
| limited volume. I can't remember the name of it, from the
| details I remember (there was a realistic orangutan or
| something like that rendered with fur) I should be able to
| find it on Google, but Google search has become degraded
| recently.
| icu wrote:
| Are there any online educational resources that teach how to do
| this?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Just google Unity tutorial. If I remember correctly Unity uses
| C#. You are not going to be doing anything close to this out of
| the gate but I do recall it being a pretty easy environment to
| learn for novices.
| torginus wrote:
| I'm kinda confused why Unity keeps doing this - they keep putting
| out high-end demo after high-end demo, but that's not where there
| core userbase is. Their main users are people who build games for
| phones and indies, with basically zero usage in the AAA space.
| And Unity's performance/stability is still not that great afaik.
|
| It seems to me that they are trying to prove that they are a
| serious 'AAA' engine, but these demos aren't that convincing to
| me - AAA is a lot more than putting fancy shaders on high-poly
| models, it's about handling huge amounts of objects in a dynamics
| situation, displaying large worlds via streaming, having a
| workflow that accommodates every creative professional, and
| offering great performance and visuals even on very complex
| scenes.
|
| I've hear that even these highly impressive demos are fake - they
| built a ton of custom code for each one they rebuild core Unity
| features, meaning if you wanted to replicate this for yourself,
| you'd be in for a ton of development.
|
| Comparatively UE5's Nanite demo showed off a tech that's ready to
| go for production.
| codefreakxff wrote:
| Probably going for this market
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/02/the-mandalorian-was-s...
| belval wrote:
| Pretty sure they want to break out of the core userbase. I once
| interviewed there and they really stressed that they were a 3D
| platform and not just a game engine.
|
| In that context it would make sense to make demos for the
| capabilities that people don't know that you have.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Check out Rust and Escape from Tarkov, they are a big step
| above your typical Unity games. So even if its not their core
| userbase they certainly have such titles already, and it seems
| that they want more.
| drusepth wrote:
| In my sphere (of ~90%/10% unity/unreal devs), a lot of Unreal's
| recent releases have been extremely tempting reasons to start
| migrating from Unity to getting more familiar with Unreal.
| They're inspiring and make a lot of upper-end Unity tech feel
| outdated by comparison. Demos like this are a nice reassurance
| that Unity's _capable_ of whatever we need to wrangle it to do,
| even if we 're not building hyper-realistic experiences like
| this now. It's nice to not feel like my preferred stack is
| falling behind the curve.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| They _want to_ compete in the AAA space. The reason Unity has
| little usage in the AAA space is because in the past Unity hasn
| 't been good enough performancewise. They need to show to
| developers and convince publishers that Unity _is_ a safe and
| viable choice for console development. If they fail at
| accomplishing this they 're ceding a huge amount of marketshare
| to their competition.
| Etheryte wrote:
| I don't work in the industry, but as an outsider your question
| seems to answer itself. I would wager that Unity wants to take
| the step from the hobbyist space to the professional space --
| because surely that's where the bigger sums are made. Even if
| they're not there right now, consistently putting out content
| that indicates that you're working on it is a great way to
| captivate your audience over time and shift the perception of
| what your brand is about. In the startup space, this would be
| similar to building in the open -- it helps you signal your
| brand, build a reputation and, hopefully, build a customer base
| that matches your sell.
| Jare wrote:
| > Their main users are people who build games for phones and
| indies, with basically zero usage in the AAA space
|
| They don't need to convince their already huge and already
| convinced core users, so there's not much point in building big
| tech demos that apply in that space. The aspirational AAA stuff
| that Unity puts out does 3 things I think:
|
| - convince current indies with big dreams that their investment
| in unity has long legs if they grow larger and more ambitious.
|
| - open up to non-gaming gfx tech sectors: broadcast, movies,
| simulation, etc.
|
| - push their engine to its limits so they know where it hurts
| the most in places that actual users are not pushing. (it has
| many known rough edges and areas, but Unity users already
| report these)
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Just to add to what everyone else is saying, they could simply
| believe that showing these demos is what attracts the smaller
| devs.
|
| People who are just getting started will see this and see that
| Unity must surely be capable of everything they need, and it
| may even be trivial there, if it can also handle this.
|
| It's also a piece of aspirational marketing. It doesn't make
| sense to show the reality of the mobile game space as that
| won't get anyone excited. It's what you could do, not what you
| will do.
| teawrecks wrote:
| UE is gaining traction in the film space. Unity wants those
| people to know they're also an option.
| Thaxll wrote:
| I think you miss the point entirely, Unity is reaching
| different space outside of mobile game, think about 3d, movies,
| vfx, ads etc ...
|
| It has been a while since Unity is not just a mobile engine.
| polski-g wrote:
| I'm glad they're progressing on this. Would be really bad for the
| industry if Unreal was the only game in town.
| softfalcon wrote:
| No kidding. I was a bit worried when Unreal was dropping demo
| after demo and Unity just remained silent for what felt like
| almost 3 years now.
| billconan wrote:
| is there a metahuman like generator? or we need to scan/model it?
| programd wrote:
| https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/digital-humans
| billconan wrote:
| this is unreal engine. I was curious if unity has something
| similar?
| freeCandy wrote:
| Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXYUNrgqWUU
|
| If you prefer not to accept cookies.
| isodev wrote:
| Thanks! It's absurd how they make us pay in cookies to view
| their marketing PR posts.
| jen729w wrote:
| Just use a blocker everywhere if you prefer not to accept
| cookies? 1Blocker on Safari did the job for me here.
| cgriswald wrote:
| Your post is being downvoted because blocking cookies does
| not solve the problem. It is blocking cookies that causes the
| issue. When cookies are blocked (in my case, third-party
| cookies are blocked), an overlay appears over the video
| explaining the website that hosts the video will not allow
| the video to be played without a targeting cookie. FWIW,
| removing the overlay was not enough to get the video to play
| on the website; but I haven't looked any further into it--
| easier to just go to YouTube to play the video.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| How are you going to watch a YouTube video without accepting
| cookies?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Simple, YouTube sets the cookie without asking, no need to
| accept them ;)
| mdoms wrote:
| Off topic but I really can't stand the increasingly common usage
| of the "hyper" modifier. What does it add to this deadline?
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Just added you to my list of hyperthinkers.
| Semiapies wrote:
| "Look at our demo of a hyper-realistic human character!"
|
| _eighteen million things happen around the character to distract
| the viewer 's attention_ from _the human character throughout
| most of the video_
|
| Not the most confident tech demo. Looks like a reasonable degree
| of evolution, but as they start to get up toward turn-of-the-
| century movie CGI in games, now you run into the same issues that
| you see in mocap for movies--including that a lot of details of
| an actor's expressions and movements actually _aren 't_ captured,
| so you have to have animators go back and laboriously add all
| those lost details back in to have something that looks
| convincing.
|
| (Mind, I say turn-of-the-century, but man, the fundamental
| techniques for rendering skin convincingly have come a long way,
| even in current game engines.)
| Animats wrote:
| _eighteen million things happen around the character to
| distract the viewer 's attention from the human character
| throughout most of the video_
|
| Yes. Why did they do all those crappy CG effects while
| showcasing photorealistic characters? Two people seated across
| a chessboard in a realistic room would have been more
| effective.
|
| It's getting to the point that everybody is doing this. Unreal
| Engine has Metahuman Creator.[1] Even Second Life has
| reasonably good heads now.[2] And has facial tracking on their
| roadmap.
|
| [2] https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman-creator
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEjvD8C0g8w
| MrLeap wrote:
| They're showing off a lot of things at once here. The real time
| raytraced lighting on their vfx is impressive. To do that in
| tandem with their human while maintaining 30fps is pretty
| something.
|
| Every thing draws from the same well so to speak, a human that
| looked a little better but had to exist alone in a white room
| would have far less utility for real things.
| torginus wrote:
| Also they have a character making weird facial expressions in a
| weird situation - I legitimately cannot tell whether the
| occasional uncanny valley effect I felt was due to intentional
| direction or just the limitation of the tech. I suspect this is
| intentional.
| ssully wrote:
| Someone who knows better can correct me, but I assume they put
| the character in a complex environment to show that they are
| rendering a highly realistic character while still rendering a
| complex environment. I remember very impressive character
| rending tech demos from 10-20 years ago, but it was a single
| character in a static environment.
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| I wonder if this is a result of Unity putting their latest M&A -
| Weta Digital to good use.
| blueneko wrote:
| The hair looks really great! In the Matrix unreal engine demo,
| they kind of cheated by having a character with long hair.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Funny sidenote about the Matrix unreal demo: where did Neo go?
| He just disappears.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| This is cool from a developer perspective.
|
| I put my ganer hat on looked at their old demos. Demos always
| look great. I'll believe it when I see it in gameplay footage.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| These tech demos usually are for developers, so that makes
| sense.
|
| IME they tend to show off how tech will look 4-5 years down the
| line, about the time a modern AAA game needs to from production
| to release.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| That lines up with what I saw.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| As an artist and game developer it disappoints me how much
| resources are wasted in pursuit of "realism".
|
| Consider how art exploded when people realized they could paint
| something other than, you know, reality.
|
| Reality is boring. Get your realism off my games. Give me
| fantastical alien worlds to explore rendered in stylized and
| weird looks.
| [deleted]
| hbn wrote:
| Even if we got to the point where the digital humans are
| indistinguishable from real footage, all your realism is gonna
| go out the window when you encounter a bug where a character is
| half-clipped into a wall. Or when an animation breaks and
| someone is standing with a backwards bent knee, and no reaction
| on their face.
|
| The idea that the ultimate endgame for video games is to have
| them look like a playable movie, or be a real-world simulation
| just seems silly to me.
| NewEntryHN wrote:
| Photography replaced painting. I don't know about boring, but
| reality wins.
| whateveracct wrote:
| You can't automate art. AAA is in large part about converting
| money into more money by way of video game sales. That's why it
| shouldn't be synonymous with anything elite.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| You can certainly pour all these resources being spent on
| rendering 'hyper-realistic digital humans' into developing
| tools, workflows and processes that give artists power and
| utility for crafting wonderous worlds.
| Koshkin wrote:
| Surely you can automate this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)
| whateveracct wrote:
| you really couldn't
| joshcryer wrote:
| Eh, keep building this technology and give me the ability to
| push a script into an AI and it render my world for me with a
| little tweaking here or there. We're not there yet but it
| recalls a moment in one of Iain Banks' novels where one of the
| minds "lies." Since it would be trivial to generate a false
| flag that had all the data necessary to prove an event
| "happened" you had to trust that he mind wasn't lying about
| what it witnessed.
|
| What is truly astonishing to me is we are close, not quite
| there, but close. I remember when The Spirits Within came out
| in 2001 and we were so blown away. I look at it now and it
| feels so amateurish in comparison.
| teawrecks wrote:
| So in other words, "stop being so creative, you're stifling my
| creativity!"
|
| What if I told you you can have fantastical alien worlds using
| stylized and weird rendering that are also physically correct?
| softfalcon wrote:
| Agree that I tend to prefer stylized non-photorealistic
| rendering in games.
|
| That being said, I think there's room for both and luckily, the
| rendering learnings from one often improve the other.
|
| Nothing wrong with exploring both venues.
| owenfi wrote:
| Well...my days of thinking we're not quite out of the uncanny
| valley...are certainly coming to a middle.
|
| Granted, the gliding across an unwalkable moving floor gear
| contraption didn't help avoid the perception that I was looking
| at an automaton.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Really impressive. I still don't think it's out of the uncanny
| valley, but it's definitely climbing out the other side.
| psyc wrote:
| More information about the production process and future plans
| here:
|
| https://80.lv/articles/enemies-the-working-process-behind-un...
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Speeding up the eye blinking would decrease the uncannyness
| significantly.
| xwdv wrote:
| Still shots look great but still looks too fake when in motion,
| we still have a long way to go.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Yes, motion is highly uncorrelated. E.g. the whole body has no
| movement when she raises a hand with a chess piece. Humans
| don't do that. Everything would move from the chest up to
| assist the motion.
| Raicuparta wrote:
| It's motion captured, that's probably just how the actress
| moved. Real stuff looks fake all the time. The parts that
| look wrong in the animations are mostly due to small
| imprecisions, especially in the facial ones.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Do you have a source for motion capture?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| The title seems editorialized by the submitter, and I don't think
| that's what the word "hyper" means.
| qwertox wrote:
| It does have its meaning in this industry, just like in arts.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_(visual_arts)
| gigatexal wrote:
| Nope. Nope. Nope. Do not want. That's too good. It's creepy good.
| I need to know what's real and what isn't. This is so real that
| I'm freaking out a bit.
| naikrovek wrote:
| rendered hair gets better all the time, but it's still not there.
|
| sucks for me because I am weird and I find it hard not to pay
| close attention to hair in real life, sometimes. this makes flaws
| in rendered hair _extremely_ obvious to me. :(
| the_af wrote:
| Definitely, the hair effects are still not there. Something is
| off, the hair moves as a block in an unnatural way. The rest of
| the face is pretty good though. The eyes are weirdly intense,
| but I suppose it was a deliberate choice and some people with
| blue eyes look like that.
| cgriswald wrote:
| I agree about the hair. It looked great when it didn't move.
| I thought the eyes were great; to the extent that they were
| intense, she's an intense looking lady; and they may have
| done so to amplify the effects.
|
| I also thought the lips were great. It was the interplay
| between lips and teeth that really threw me off.
| Animats wrote:
| _rendered hair gets better all the time, but it 's still not
| there._
|
| That's a sheer compute power problem. If you have a big enough
| render farm, you can run physics on every strand of hair.
| Retr0id wrote:
| Throwing more compute power at it is _A_ solution, but it 's
| not necessarily the only solution.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| This is really impressive assuming it is as automated/scalable as
| Unity implies.
|
| The skin and hair look great which are both really challenging
| for their own reasons, but one particular detail that was
| surprising was at 1:36. If you watch her lips closely you can see
| where the top and bottom lip stick together as they open. If they
| can simulate that level of skin detail when the motion is backed
| by mocap data this could be a huge quality jump for character-
| driven and dialogue heavy games.
|
| There are definitely still moments where the lips, teeth, and
| tongue look "3D" but I don't think I would notice if I weren't
| hyper focusing on the mouth and just enjoying the story.
| hgomersall wrote:
| What's interesting is that for most of my childhood (80s and
| 90s), aside from a few wow moments I was pretty underwhelmed by
| the standard of the tech. It was like it was trying hard to be
| something it wasn't yet ready to be. I used to walk into
| television shops and think they all just look crap. Computers
| used to frustrate me so much - crunch crunch to do anything, and
| 256 colours was deemed good (!?). The first music players where
| you might be able to get one whole album onto a memory card that
| was too expensive to put a price in the rs catalogue (or perhaps
| too volatile a price). Anyway, tech was crap. Then around 2005 or
| something, it started becoming what it was meant to be. You could
| buy a computer and it could do everything you needed it to do; of
| course you always wanted more number crunching, but you could see
| where it was only just right the corner. Then GPUs started doing
| computation, and computation stopped being thought about. Memory
| was super fast and copious. One now felt limited by programming
| capability, not hardware. I'm now genuinely excited by
| technology. As much as it pains me to say it, the television
| departments are places of wonder.
|
| It's in that context that this post feels like another step
| towards achieving some promised vision. If this is realtime, it
| is truly fantastic.
|
| Now to hope we can deal with climate change and despots and
| poverty so it's not all for nought.
|
| As an aside, one early wow moment was the first time I saw a mini
| camcorder, then another for the first genuinely mobile phone;
| both Sony I think. Also, though a bit later, I remember seeing an
| in-car GPS and deciding it was basically a perfect interface for
| it's task.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| If you're interested in tech becoming really magic, lookup the
| VRchat club scene. Real-life skilled DJs put out of clubs by
| covid, setup a twitch stream with a webcam on their DJ
| controller, while wearing full-body VR themselves, also
| streaming their DJ software and in-game view to an in-world
| stage screen in front of up to 80 guests, many if not most also
| wearing full-body VR, dancing along together, in any kind of
| digital world and wearing any kind of semi-humanoid (or not) 3D
| model you can imagine. The "metaverse" has already been running
| for a few years, but it's not Meta's, it's a thin multiplayer
| VR wrapper over Unity.
| Cloudef wrote:
| People alone in their rooms strapped screen into their face,
| just to be "together with other people" sounds more like
| dystopian nightmare to me
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| Can't deny there's an aspect of that to it, yeah. But to
| the ravers and clubbers, this was a lifesaver.
| politelemon wrote:
| I can imagine at a certain point, with enough realism and detail
| and control, game engines becoming a viable content creation tool
| for pornography.
| psyc wrote:
| A lot of people are working on it. They mainly live on Patreon.
| For VR, specifically. It's the only feasible way to approach
| 6dof porn, currently, AFAIK.
| mtizim wrote:
| Go catch up, there's probably gigabytes of SFM porn of every
| modestly popular game character you know.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Oh my sweet summer child. Let's just say you aren't the first
| to think this.
| jen729w wrote:
| It occurred to me yesterday that at some point someone will
| inevitably advocate for the banning of deep fake pornography
| in their country by creating a porno starring the politicians
| of their lower house. I reckon it'd be illegal within the
| week.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Such things already exist... they're just not popular for
| obvious reasons.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/12/1018222/deepfak
| e...
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Interesting, but I wonder how this would be enforced. I
| wouldn't be surprised if over half these cases were
| people who live in entirely different countries. would
| another country extradite a citizen over this? This has
| "technically" been possible for centuries so I wonder if
| there's any case study surrounding this.
| angryGhost wrote:
| And this was done in real time!? wow...
| FpUser wrote:
| There are things that look realistic from a first glance, like
| hires skin and hair.
|
| But face animation - no way. It is freakish and screams fake.
| tobr wrote:
| That looks better to my eyes than Leia in Rogue One. Although it
| might help that I'm not familiar with this actress.
| gokhan wrote:
| Check this for a fix for Leia in R1
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKy9kGnyvo
| danparsonson wrote:
| And his follow-up which is even better:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXMb_MO3aw
| otikik wrote:
| They are Hyper-Realistic Digital _Stills_ of Humans.
|
| There's a lot of room for improvement in the animation
| department, though. For me the worst offender is the mouth, it
| moves in a completely unrealistic manner. The second worst
| offender is the head/neck movement, which moves with robot-like
| precision. Finally, the eyes, which are (granted) not as "dead"
| as in other models, stare too much and communicate too little.
| kingcharles wrote:
| The hand movements were jerky too. Just like they were in the
| 1990s. I don't understand why we're still struggling with
| producing animation that isn't uncanny valley?
| daenz wrote:
| The mouth movement[0] sold it for me. Mouths are incredibly hard
| to do in CG, because you have to have realistic interactions
| between lips, teeth, and tongue. Not sure how they scanned this
| so well (maybe it was hand animated?) but it looks excellent.
|
| 0. https://youtu.be/eXYUNrgqWUU?t=87
| otikik wrote:
| Really? Because that was the worst part for me. To me it looks
| absolutely and positively synthetic. I mean, it is better than
| Terrance and Phillip from South Park, but perhaps because it's
| "close to reality, but not there yet" it falls into the uncanny
| valley to me.
|
| Perhaps this is similar to how some people aren't bothered by
| bad kerning (to which I'm fairly tolerant).
| philovivero wrote:
| You're right. The mouth movement was awful. I have no idea
| what OP is on about saying it was good. Maybe my uncanny
| valley is also steep, but nothing about this demo struck me
| as good.
|
| The tech maybe is good, but I wouldn't know it from this
| video. The animation and lighting are just awful.
| playpause wrote:
| How come the latest cutting edge tech demos showcasing
| photorealism are barely more 'realistic' than a PS4 video game
| cutscene from a few years ago? There wasn't any part of the demo
| video where the guy looked or moved like a human.
| CanSpice wrote:
| Those cutscenes weren't rendered in real-time, instead taking
| longer than one second to render one second of video. This one
| is rendered in real-time. It's impressive for sure to render
| lifelike humans, but to do so in real-time is even more
| impressive.
| monkeydust wrote:
| Is it strange but as a product guy my first thought when I saw
| this is how I could use it to replace my sales team... Well 80%
| of them at least.
| saas_sam wrote:
| As a sales guy, you might want to learn a bit more about the
| value of sales. (It ain't the faces.)
| MasterScrat wrote:
| > Unity's Demo productions drive advanced use of the Unity real-
| time 3D platform through autonomous creative projects, led by
| Creative Director Veselin Efremov.
|
| Does this mean this was rendered in real-time?
| swiftcoder wrote:
| On a single RTX 3090, according to the announcement.
| MasterScrat wrote:
| Where did you see that? I would love a quote on this and
| CTRL-F returns nothing
| yurymik wrote:
| > With ultra settings, it runs at 4k 30fps (average of
| 40fps) on an i7 cpu and rtx 3090.
|
| by rob cupisz (Tech and Rendering Lead at Unity Demo Team)
| https://twitter.com/robcupisz/status/1505875759243612172
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I was going to say that the overlaps between one lock of hair
| to another, between hair and background/hair and skin, and
| the edges of lips and teeth looked a little poorly keyed,
| like the objects had high resolution textures but the surface
| map/motion rig was low-poly...which would be annoying but
| probably easy enough to ignore in an indie film.
|
| But live? On a single (hard to get) consumer GPU? That's
| seriously impressive. It makes me wonder how much of this is
| hand-tuned rigging and how much is physics based; if you
| tried to shake hands with this digital human using a game
| controller or VR rig, how would that look?
| jerf wrote:
| I remember for a long while everything was "Toy Story" quality
| in real time, the PS2, the PS3, etc. It never really was.
|
| But at some point, we definitely passed it. The room is nifty,
| but mostly been done. But that is a pretty good person. Lip
| sync is a bit off somehow... I think perhaps just too
| overexaggerated in the motions. But I couldn't tell you from a
| still frame that wasn't a real person, in real clothes.
|
| I also continue to find it amusing that we can build a person
| like that and sell it as commercial tech, but we still have to
| record people talking. (Though TTS has taken an interesting
| turn lately, after years of not much.)
| elliekelly wrote:
| Tangentially related: Why can't movie studios use a SnapChat-
| like filter to replace the mouth movement of foreign language
| films with the mouth movement of the voiceover actors? I feel
| like that technology definitely exists. There are so many
| great foreign movies & shows but the voiceover + unmatched
| mouth movement can be so distracting. Is it just too
| expensive?
| dvirsky wrote:
| I wouldn't want to watch something like that, I want to
| watch the original film. Then again I also never watch
| dubbed movies/tv, I prefer reading subtitles.
| Animats wrote:
| That's available now. Can't find the link, but it exists at
| movie quality for non real time.
|
| It will probably become as routine as automatic dialog
| replacement.
| zokier wrote:
| > I also continue to find it amusing that we can build a
| person like that and sell it as commercial tech, but we still
| have to record people talking. (Though TTS has taken an
| interesting turn lately, after years of not much.)
|
| I suspect part of the problem is that dialog in games is
| still largely "static"; if the writing is pre-canned then it
| does not make that much sense to try to develop advanced tts
| to act it out. The situation will become interesting if we
| manage to produce sufficiently dynamic dialog system where it
| is not feasible to use pre-recorded voice acting anymore.
| jonathan-adly wrote:
| A time-traveler from the 80's would be disappointed on how far we
| progressed technologically in everything, except video games.
| They would be amazed!
| elihu wrote:
| The way people use computers and the Internet has been a huge
| change. Wikipedia sounds like something that couldn't possibly
| work, except it turns out that it (mostly) does. Self-landing
| rockets are pretty impressive. I think the rise of free and
| open source software would be surprising to most people. The
| fact that Russia and the United States haven't directly fought
| a war with each other in all this time and our cities haven't
| been reduced to rubble by nuclear weapons would seem pretty
| remarkable to an 80's person. (Though one might want to hold
| off a few weeks/months before declaring premature victory on
| that front.) Dystopian predictions about the environment were
| kind of right -- the effects are there, but American cities
| don't look like Blade Runner quite yet. Manipulation of society
| doesn't look like 1984 unless you're in an authoritarian
| country. Instead, big brother watches you from electronic
| devices that people voluntarily buy and use, and "big brother"
| is usually a private adtech company.
| otikik wrote:
| I am a time-traveler from the 80s - It just took me 40 years to
| travel to here.
|
| I am way more disappointed on our societal progress than I am
| on our technological progress.
|
| But to be completely honest, I was expecting at least a
| moonbase by now.
| jotm wrote:
| I mean, yeah, if they're satisfied with viewing demos on
| Youtube. The vast majority of people can't actually play the
| newest games at their best settings :D
| throwawaygh wrote:
| _> A time-traveler from the 80 's_
|
| You don't exactly need time travel to get an opinion from
| someone who lived the 1980s... try asking your parents?
| dvirsky wrote:
| That hurt.
| thfuran wrote:
| My parents weren't just released from prison after having
| been locked away from society since the 80s. Nor have they
| just awoken from 35 year comas. Sure, they'll have a
| different perspective than someone who doesn't remember the
| 80s but they'll surely also have a different perspective from
| someone with a more abrupt and recent introduction to the
| latest modernity.
| cgriswald wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| They'll have watched The Jetsons, Blade Runner, 2001, 2010:
| The Year We Make Contact, and a host of other science
| fiction that all made the year 2000 look like the year
| 2100. In 1981, we sure didn't think the Berlin Wall would
| fall and the USSR would cease to exist a decade later
| (unless that came about by an apocalypse).
| jpindar wrote:
| The pocket computer that I'm reading this on might not be
| amazing but I don't think it would be disapointing.
| osigurdson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II
| psyc wrote:
| My mind was blown out the back of my head the first time I saw
| Super Mario Bros in an arcade in 1986-7. I wonder what would
| have happened to my sanity if someone had shown me a modern
| game one minute later.
| 2III7 wrote:
| Electric cars/bicycles/scooters/motorcycles, computers in
| everyones pocket, huge cheap TV-s, fast wireless internet,
| robotic lawn mowers, radar cruise control and the list goes on
| and on and on...
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Drones that have a 30+ minute battery life. 4k cameras.
| Rockets that land themselves.
| jpadkins wrote:
| Are 4k cameras actually that much better than film from the
| 80s? (other than convenience)
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| depends what you mean by convenience. The image quality
| of a 4k camera isn't that much better, but that's largely
| because it doesn't need to be. Cameras in the 80s already
| produced great pictures. The difference is that they can
| weigh less than a pound and be run for hours at a time
| without worrying about paying ridiculous amounts for
| film.
| jen729w wrote:
| "Hey Siri, show the time-traveller something cool!"
|
| ...
|
| "It works sometimes, I swear."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-22 23:00 UTC)