When will computers be capable of making something like the nightmare

>>535754
retard

>>535755
Why anon?

>>535756
Because we've been on a level where we could recreate nightmare before christmas entirely digitally years ago.

Just because Pixar or whatever doesn't opt for an artstyle with detailed photorealistic textures doesn't mean it's not possible.

Look at any major hollywood blockbuster that uses CGI, 90% of it you won't even notice being CGI.

So you either were not aware of hollywood blockbusters, which makes you ignorant, or you willfully ignored them because you have no idea what you are talking about and think artstyle = technology.

In short, you're a retard for even asking this.

>>535757
Show me an example then

If what you're claiming is true then why do companies still opt for traditional physical clay models?

>>535757
That's not true at all. We can't even replicate the style of a hand drawn fucking image let alone the photorealism of clay textures

>>535759
That's what I thought too. Hence why I made the thread.

>>535759
>>535760
Actually we can. It's used a ton in Anime, and in the link below. However the difference is, is that anime sometimes suffers using 3D whereas others can replicate it almost perfectly. This game utilizes 3D very well and emulates the 2D format impressively. Moments seem more 3D than 2D but for the gameplay its effects are well done. Not only that, but to answer OPs question, CGI is used in movies extensively, and many of the movies you watch from Hollywood engage in photo-realism that you would have never guessed were there to begin with. To say that photorealism doesn't exist in movies from Hollywood is to be ignorant.
Finally you pretend that 3D cannot match stop motion of tNBC, yet you don't understand that most people don't care to emulate it in 3D. Laika Productions can easily emulate the product in 3D, as said by the CEO of the company. However they choose to utilize stop motion purposely because he feels it to be more passionate (paraphrasing). Stop coming onto /3/ from /v/ and /co/, queers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGPhKu3jNg&feature=youtu.be

>>535758
Which companies? Laika?
They do it out of passion for the art, not because CGI can't do it.

>>535759
lmao'ing at your life right now.
>We can't even replicate the style of a hand drawn fucking image

The fuck does that even mean? There's anime already that use cg models instead of drawing.

This was made by guy in blender in 2012:
http://www.blenderguru.com/competitions/new-blender-competition-photo-realism/#

Pick any frame in a recent marvel movie, 95% of the scene will be CGI and you didn't even notice it.

Your IKEA catalogue? Almost entirely CGI. Product shots? CGI.

>>535759
>we can't even replicate the style of a hand drawn fucking image
>what is paperman


To answer OP's question, technologically we are most likely already at that point, or very close.

With all the shit that goes into Hollywood films, I'm only assuming mimicking realistic clay figures would be fairly simple in comparison.
Modern computers and studios definitely have the hardware and computing power to pull something like this off.
It's more so that no one has really felt the need to attempt this style, as far as I know. Some experimentation would undoubtedly be required before the CG animation looks 100% real.

Assuming we have the technology:
It becomes a waiting game in which we need:
1. A director to actually want CGI in a claymation style over just traditional claymation
2. CGI to become less costly than claymation
3. A director to foot the cost of figuring out how exactly to mimic claymation through CGI, to get the most realistic results

I'm just assuming since it's such a niche area of animation, that most directors are perfectly fine sticking with the traditional way of doing things.
We probably have the tech to do it, but no one has ever attempted it, because there isn't really even a demand for it.

File: 1atlzb.jpg (84KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x666px

tl:dr
>OP is retarded
>in 2016 we can basically simulate whatever we want like we have been for years
>OP is still a fucking cuckold who is stupid enough to go on /3/ to answer what he could have found on google.

>>535763
Laika already did it, you're a fool if you believe their movies are 100% stop motion

>>535765
Coraline was full stop-motion though, in terms of the characters, no?

But you're right, most of their newer films include some combination of CG and stop-motion.
From what I've read, it looks like they 3D print their characters.

>>535754
>Replacing an art form with digital

Yeah no.

Why is nobody mentioning Aardman studios? They've been using 3d elements in their movies for some time now, and though Flushed Away looks dated now, it is a fully computer animation mimicking their stop motion style.

>>535754
/ic/ please leave.

>>535772
>looks dated now

That's the thing though isn't it? Doing claymation with real figures never looks dated, whereas digital creations always end up looking dated a few years down the road

>>535761
>However they choose to utilize stop motion purposely because he feels it to be more passionate (paraphrasing).

Lol this is bullshit. The ceo never said that

>>535763
Paperman hasn't even come close to replicating hand drawn art styles

>>535781

Not really. It looks dated because the technology and tools have improved since then. This means that the next movie that copies the stop motion style will look indistinguisable from the actual thing.

http://cinefex.com/blog/boxtrolls/

>>535781
Considering Kubo is half CG you can stop being retarded.

>>535799
But boxtrolls uses real clay figures. How does that prove your point?

>>535802
How exactly does kubo disprove my point? 5 years down the track itll look like shit. You seem very emotionally invested in the answer to OPs question, "retard".

have you seen lego movie?

>>535818
Yeah what about it

>>535802
>>535757
>>535764
>>535802
I swear retard is used here about as often as cuck is used on /pol/

If only /3/ could go to /lit/ and learn how to express their feelings

>>535824
The irony is that their posts are"retarded". They imply that we can simulate anything digitally nowadays. That's funny because I've never seen a realistic render of a human bean

>>535808
They 3d printed their figures in boxtrolls. You're so wrong it's incredibly obvious you have done no research on the topic and just want to argue.

Shut the fuck up.

>>535827
What am I wrong about? They're still using real models, no?

>>535757
>90% of it you won't even notice being CGI.

That's not fucking true at all, you can always tell when the lighting is off, when the animation isn't quite right, etc.

The human brain is super good at spotting things that are "off" even if the viewer can't articulate what's wrong.

>>535761
>Actually we can.

Actually, we can't. Guilty Gear is the closest anyone's gotten, and it still isn't perfect, and no one else is using their techniques.
In Anime it's always obvious when shit's 3D because it looks too accurate, too perfect and stands out next to the imperfectly hand drawn shit.

>>535754
It's cheaper to do it in claymation. Maybe a hundred years from now or something it'll be break even, but otherwise it's just cheaper to do it with actual clay

File: hyperrealcg_man[1].jpg (28KB, 580x580px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 580x580px

>>535826
retard

>>535829
Retard, you've already watched anime that was entirely 3D and didn't realize it. Go back to /ic/ loser. Also Guilty Gear in the gameplay (not the cinematics like I said) looks like 2D. Stop whining please.

>>535829
So much misinformation in this post it's retarded.

>>535819
all cg you cuck
besides the parts in real life

>>535826
The ultimate irony. You see them all the time in movies my friend.

>>535828

>>535828

Yes, Boxtrolls still uses clay figures. That was not my point. My point is that Boxtrolls also used digital characters for complex crowd scenes and that they look indistinguishable from the clay characters, not to mention digital backgrounds.

Therefore should a studio like Laika want to, they could make a full 3d digital movie and still make it look like traditional stop motion.

>>535910
And why didn't they want to? For the love of the art? Seems like a bad excuse

>>535919
No, that's exactly the excuse.
Laika is a passion project by the son of Nike owner.
There is no reason to not do it in CGI except "We love working with real figures"

>>535829
I can't handle al the retardation in this post.

Please end yourself.

>>535919
>>535925


For the love of art is one reason.

The other reason is more logical: At this moment Laika has a large number of artists specialised with making stop motion movies: animators, character builders, set builders, prop builders, camera technicians, material buyers and storage managers, etc. etc. Whatever. A whole studio of specialists. So, if Laika would just go digital, they would need to get rid of all these people and instead hire a whole bunch of digital artists who have the skillset to do all the necessary stuff in 3d.

This would be a huge and costly effort. As long as the movies they make earn enough money, why make that effort? It makes no economic sense.

Only if the movies won't earn enough money Laika could be forced to slowly transition to a fully digital studio, trimming people.

So, if you love traditional stop motion, go to the movies and buy the dvds! :-)