Sabre Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Most people think it's real. I believe it's more of a case of poor design and exicution. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulvokunvrii Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 what is this uncanny valley you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarita Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 what is this uncanny valley you speak of?The Uncanny Valley is a robotics term. It mainly occurs when the level of realism in behavior/appearance don't match in a robot. It freaks people out to see what they think is completely human (or robot) act in strange, erratic robotic (or incredibly human) ways.There's a graph on the Wikipedia page that applies it to things like corpses and stuffed animals. You should check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yup, mostly poor design and execution when it comes to our good friend the Uncanny Valley. It can also be a case of perception; what would look fine for some would utterly freak out others :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulvokunvrii Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The Uncanny Valley is a robotics term. It mainly occurs when the level of realism in behavior/appearance don't match in a robot. It freaks people out to see what they think is completely human (or robot) act in strange, erratic robotic (or incredibly human) ways.There's a graph on the Wikipedia page that applies it to things like corpses and stuffed animals. You should check it out.i looked it a little; soo what i think i see is that people are fraking out at the possiblity of us making Android-like people out of almost anything, and that they wouldnt beable to tell if they were real or not?! xD hahahahahahahah oookaayy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 i looked it a little; soo what i think i see is that people are fraking out at the possiblity of us making Android-like people out of almost anything, and that they wouldnt beable to tell if they were real or not?! xD hahahahahahahah oookaayy.....No. The idea is when you make a machine, game, film, whatever, and try and make an make it realistic, the tiny details like movement, glint in the eye, ect. repulse people as it looks 'weird'. Stuffed animals are another example.That's if you believe it. The other side who believe that it doesn't happen like that, and that it's just a case of not doing a good job. When Crysis and Oblivion came out, people said they had photo realistic graphics, and claimed that they had the uncanny valley effect. Now graphics have moved on it's clear it was a case of poor exicution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's not a matter of not doing a good job. The more realistic things are, the harder it is to make them more realistic. There is no linear curve to realism. It's an exponential curve. In order to get past the uncanny valley, you have to be perfect. Perfect is very very hard to do (only recently achieved with 3D graphics). You can't add just a little more subsurface scattering, you have to completely rewrite the skin renderer from scratch. You can't just add a higher quality bump map, you have to use ray tracing. So don't just assume programmers and artists are being lazy. It's truly a nearly impossible problem to solve.As for the uncanny valley, I believe it exists because that's how the mind works. The human mind is a comparative difference engine. The closer things get to reality, the more we see the differences from reality. If it is something far away from reality, we see the similarities. Look at this simple example:Which is closer to reality? Yet which is the more unsettling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 However, that same example can be used against the exsistence of Uncanny Valley. eg. Which is the better exicuted? Half arsed photoshop, or well exicuted cartoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Fox Runner Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 As for the uncanny valley, I believe it exists because that's how the mind works. The human mind is a comparative difference engine. The closer things get to reality, the more we see the differences from reality. If it is something far away from reality, we see the similarities. Look at this simple example:Which is closer to reality? Yet which is the more unsettling?I understand what Mr. Krystal is saying about that. The cartoon image I find more pleasant to look at, and it just seems........... better. The bottom one...... there's just something wrong with it. Its creepy looking.I can't explain it better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 However, that same example can be used against the exsistence of Uncanny Valley. eg. Which is the better exicuted? Half arsed photoshop, or well exicuted cartoon?But the debate was never about which was better executed, it was about which one is the most "realistic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I don't get what you are saying. Like I said in the op, I believe that the uncanny valley doesn't exsist, that rather its poor execution and/or design. You show those 2 images as an example that the uncanny valley exsists, but the same evidence also proves my original point, that it's just a case of poor execution.The cartoon is well made, but the photoshop, while no doubt took a bit of effort, is still half arsed. You can tell it's 2 photos slammed together.Let me give an abstract example. If someone has a good toupe, you don't notice it. It looks like real hair. If someone has a bad toupe, it looks silly and people can easily point and shout "Rug head!". The uncanny valley is basicly rug head.To give another example. Super models. When you see a model on a magazine cover. Chances are her skin has makeup to make it look nicer. You don't notice. If someone wears a ton of makeup and a false tan it looks really bad. That's like the uncanny valley.Going back to the photo. If someone photoshops blemishes from skin in a celebrity magazine, no uncanny valley, but someone adds fur, uncanny valley. Why? It's the same thing only adding skin instead of hair. The difference is that the photo above has been done horribly by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha Weltzin Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Alright. If we're arguing quality, then here's a better example of the CG "realism" side of the coin:Now, which one's creepier? The cartoon, or this (content aside—just pay attention to the character details)?No, I'm not making a point. I'm just bringing in a more worthy example for the debate. I'm still personally undecided on whether the Uncanny Valley effect is determined by quality or by some sort of deep emotional "It wants to be human!" feeling. Both sides have made decent arguments thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 While yes, the problem with the uncanny valley IS quality, I disagree about that implication. You're right, the photoshop is not as good as it could be. Let's take a CHAMPION photomorph or two. There is no debating the quality of these images, but I guarantee they are creepy (at least to me they are). Now of course, if one could theoretically do a photomorph PERFECTLY, then we would not be as creeped out, but again, perfection is nearly impossible. Your arguing "there's no uncanny valley, it's just not realistic enough," but I am arguing "it starts looking LESS realistic (or more creepy) as I add MORE realism in the form of detail and better proportions, until a magical moment when things become perfect." Lack of quality (perfection) is the cause of the uncanny valley. That's all.Again, let's compare to some cartoon-style wolves (and please note, these are actually only average quality artworks for their medium):And again, I ask the question, which pictures are the most realistic, and which (if any) are the most creepy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts