CGi sex and anonymity

blissed · 22-10-11 13:43:12

I need one to one realism to make CGi porn.

This clip is violent but rather beautiful cinematically. I would give it 7 out of 10 for realism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Tkgpt_ … ideo_title

The problems are still close up. faces and high frequency movement we think we don't notice but do. the tiny jiggles of anything loose straight after an impact. With out them objects look wooden an movement unatural. So it's high resolution soft tissue high freqiency movement we need and we're there. If you doubt me, illusions are created by being totally complete, a bit like a room doesn't feel like a room until it's completely decorated, furnished and complete.

Once we have one to one realism the other problem is cost. So a short while has to elapse before the cost will become affordable. Then the art of making movies is as accessable as writing books. That will be fascinating and as vocal performances can be altered most performance can be anonymous. Or perhaps that concept doesn't even apply to motion capture performance and post production creations. We never think of Mickey mouse being anonymous do we

.

Redmango · 07-01-12 13:26:26

You're right about the development of CGI tools. They're getting better all the time, and very soon I think we won't be able to tell CGI from real recordings.

What I have always thought is interesting, though, is how easy it is to trick our brains. Or maybe it is merely that our brains are so adept at fixing errors or filling missing data.

Just consider this simple matter: I cannot mate with a photograph, yet I can see a photograph of a woman and my body will become ready for mating. My genes don't know the difference between a photograph and a real woman, but a photograph can still trigger all the same responses. So what the hell is going on inside my brain?

My point is that CGI doesn't need to be perfect to be "realistic enough" for a particular purpose. Hell, depth perception alone is a faculty that's missing from any 2D representation on film, but we accept the flaw. Frankly, the idea that computers may eventually achieve perfect mimicry of real photography is chilling. Think of the potential for fakery...

I can see the headline now: "President Says Sex Tape is CGI, Analysis Underway"

viva · 09-01-12 01:05:07

If you think about being modern and progressive in a certain way, using real people in movies, porn and otherwise, seems as clumsy and analog as filming a miniature train model when you need a nice train explosion. why not just render the train? why not just render everything? rendered things don't eat or pollute or need 5 more minutes or "I'm just having a really hard day okay!?", and they don't need to be cleaned up or transported or paid.

Rendered things also never say, "I don't want to be touched like that" or "I don't think that octopus is going to fit in there."

There's an interesting thought in my sardonic warblings somewhere. Where does consent come in when we play with imaginary constructs? In hentai, we see that the sky's the limit - anything those dirty little animators with their twitching fingers can imagine, they can do - to girl, boy, sister teacher etc.

If we were to render our entertainment entirely out of thin air, would consent cease to be a function of film, especially pornography? There would be no problem getting the female lead to show her tits in every action film. Would "reality porn" revert in some crucial way? Once we can see completely realistic CGI models doing anything we could possibly imagine, would an analog slide show of a girl taking off her shoes be the new ultimate in titillation?

artemesia · 09-01-12 03:23:34

viva wrote:

Once we can see completely realistic CGI models doing anything we could possibly imagine, would an analog slide show of a girl taking off her shoes be the new ultimate in titillation?

But how would one purport that the image was real in the first place? As Debord says modern society places more emphasis on the counterfeit than the real. It will be extremely interesting, as Redmango points out, how this kind of technology could be used and abused.

But truth be told, CGI has been creating wonderful and very real sequences since waaaay back in 2000, but the skill level varies from year to year. The example Blissed gave shows the wonderful effects that the right use of textures and clever lighting can give... But the old innane problem of how to replicate the muscles in the face, to give expression and such still remains the crucial reason why pure CGI isn't used more. Remember how frustrating it was to watch 'final fantasy'? The eyes of the characters never seem to convincingly meet. There's a ton of research being pumped into robotics and the replication of human emotions so we'd probably be closer to achieving that kind of porn with sex robots than with CGI characters in that respect.

I agree with Viva, I think the real problem with CGI porn will be with the issue of consent. Interspecies sex? No problem creating it, but how will it effect our psyches seeing that crazy space spider rape egg laying sequence? Do we really need to challenge ourselves with the seeing more and more twisted and intense out of this world imagery and drama?

Going back to emotions, for me, emotions are what makes a porn scenario more fascinating and ultimately more enjoyable to watch. When I see a couple who have that mind blowing fuck chemistry, their sex becomes to me an art, rather than the dog and pony trick show, that CGI can offer. I think that CGI is so far away from convincingly giving us both that I'm glad I still have my imagination intact. And of course some of the freakishly hawt consent porn that being produced atm. But I can't even begin to imagine CGI characters or robots exploring their sexual preferences, their likes/dislikes, histories and spontaneity anymore convincingly than a human being doing so, ever (.)

artemesia · 09-01-12 03:24:49

bahahaha, whoops, totally missed the point of CGI and anonmity on this thread....

blissed · 09-01-12 14:18:41

That's OK, threads just follow a conversational train of thought.

If comics can have depth and be brilliant and drawn animation can too and if your replacing those lines with photoreal and then totally real looking CGi (which none of us has knowingly seen yet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k) then we will have a platform for expressing complex thoughts and emotions. Then, as now, it would be down to how people want to express themselves in sexually arousing art.

As to convincing performance. The curious case of Benjamin Button is nearly there. CGi people just need the effects of high frequency vibration. See a real slow motion slap in the face and look at all the tiny ripples in the skin and flesh, (all very complex to create in CGi) We see them at normal speed in real life but our mind sees weight and substance. Without them the CGi object or person looks weightless. Benjamin button only lacks high frequency vibration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYSXaU6e … re=related

Viva you still have actors just like a radio play or the Simpsons, and in porn just like sonic erotica. You still have motion capture with all it's expressivity and the interplay with the renderer / animator and the actor and they could be the same person.

If one person can do all the voices and motion capture then the consent is the same as a novel written by one person. Where as if your acting in someone elses story with your name in the credits you'll need to agree what you want to do.

People will have computer sex games that like platonic games now would have a physics engine but a totally real looking output. (which again, we've never knowingly seen). there would be interaction with characters and games written to suit your sexuality where your desired and chased by the interactive characters or the usual stale lonely fantasy where the characters are your puppets. to pose. But far better just like second life, the online game would involve the totally real looking avatars of real other people. and those interactions will be real. And if someone wants to record that interaction then you have reality porn. The only difference then would be having a choice of appearance.

That appearance will differ of course depending on who makes the movie and what role play is arousing. Creative fantasy role playing as well as a credibly real appearance and the later even in creative fantasy role play is what arouses me the most.

Redmango, totally real looking CGi output would mean video evidence isn't either admisable or useful in court, and that's where we were before video came long. But if a censor was able to pick up just one of your dead skin cells at a scene, your banged to rights

.

Last edited by blissed (09-01-12 16:10:21)

WLV612 · 09-01-12 16:54:50

viva wrote:

There's an interesting thought in my sardonic warblings somewhere. Where does consent come in when we play with imaginary constructs? In hentai, we see that the sky's the limit - anything those dirty little animators with their twitching fingers can imagine, they can do - to girl, boy, sister teacher etc.
If we were to render our entertainment entirely out of thin air, would consent cease to be a function of film, especially pornography?

Two good points and two moral and legal worm cans.
Many people in today's cyber-driven world often lose sight of societal boundaries, boundaries, like it or not are put in place to protect the rights and safety of the majority of the people regardless of where they may live.
If people who are prone to being unable to make life decisions as a result of isolation, ignorance of the laws/boundaries, perhaps an inability to process the complex and ever changing codes, written or implied, may present a risk of abuse, physical or mental to other individuals they may meet or be in close proximity to.
Okay, am I off topic here? Does any of this make sense?
The Simpsons. How old is Maggie Simpson? 22? How old is Mickey Mouse? 63?
The speed at which the cyber-world had grown, is still growing has presented questions that were unimaginable 40 years ago.
Viva touches on the tip of a moral and legal iceberg. (I love my metaphors.)

blissed wrote:

That appearance will differ of course depending on who makes the movie and what role play is arousing. Creative fantasy role playing as well as a credibly real appearance and the later even in creative fantasy role play is what arouses me the most.

I'm sure you're far from alone in this but arousal can take on many different aspects. Sexual arousal may cause a person to act out, either alone or with a consenting partner/partners. Another person who may have difficulty recognizing boundaries or the limitations set by the rules of society may act out in a manner entirely dictated by their own limits. And to extend Viva's thought, the sky may be the limit.

blissed · 09-01-12 17:49:41

W that's the old argumenrt for censoring porn. Most people watch and enjoy disaster movies with no real limits because we know it's pretend and so consentual. I can watch in horror tsunami or 9/11 footage but I don't want to watch it as entertainment. Same with BDSM porn. I have to know all invovled are kinky and it's concentual. Old cowboy movies where horses have a long rope tied to one leg and then gallop away so that eventually they get to the end of the rope and fall looking like they're shot, throwing the stunt rider but breaking their back leg, no I don't want to see that either it's disgusting and from that scene the movie is turned off. Most people want scenes to be consentual and people who don't care have a problem regardles of wether it's CGi or not.

.

WLV612 · 09-01-12 20:01:47

Sent you an off site reply. So no one get's the wrong idea, just expressing my thoughts and asking for feedback.

viva · 10-01-12 00:18:27

we like thoughts and feedback!

two more of my cents - I personally am not so great at distinguishing between fantasy and reality. I like to see some pretty crazy things even when I'm not sure if its real or not, and in my anime porn, well as we like to say around here, sky's the limit. If I could be assured that all entertainment-purposed porn was as fantastical as Katamari Damashii, I personally might want to see and even enjoy seeing some pretty fucked-up shit.

ah jeez im having trouble making my point, it's all iceberg tips over here. someone help me. something something cartoons and cgi can't consent across the board for an entire gender or class while human representations of that group to some extent can blah something meow?

WLV612 · 10-01-12 13:36:43

viva wrote:

we like thoughts and feedback!

I wrote this long, rambling sort of thing trying to either defend some form of censorship of CGI sexual material, or dispute it and although I felt I knew what I wanted to write, it wasn't working so I PM'ed it instead. blissed is pretty sharp and will hopefully make something of it.

viva wrote:

ah jeez im having trouble making my point, it's all iceberg tips over here. someone help me. something something cartoons and cgi can't consent across the board for an entire gender or class while human representations of that group to some extent can blah something meow?

Okay, that's where I was yesterday. Just all over the road. I tend to do that, even sober.
It's a moral minefield and I was stumbling through it blindfolded.

Last edited by WLV612 (10-01-12 13:38:16)

blissed · 10-01-12 19:45:51

I haven't received a long post just an email saying you've written one

Viva I don't think there's consent across the board, but there is a kind of social permission. If you like to see men being whipped then there is value in me saying I fantasize about that happening to me. That's what i'd call a social permission, just like there are women who enjoy being whipped too. But that's not consent, consent is up to each individual. No-one is gonna pay someone to do outragious acts when we can produce them and make them look totally real in a computer for free. So from that point I think the average assumption will be they're not real unless caroberated that they are from several trusted sources. Was that helmet video of someone falling from a plane and only breaking their legs real? Yes the doctor who treated them said it's true. With out that, the average assumption will be that it's not. So if there are millions of videos showing one gender doing outragious acts most people aren't gonna think there must be millions of people of that gender who are up for that because they'll know no real person was involved in making those videos. But I think there would be a kind of social permission to admit to watching them if members of that gender admitted to watching and being aroused by them too.

.

WLV612 · 10-01-12 22:27:36

blissed wrote:

I haven't received a long post just an email saying you've written one

.

Huh? That's odd. I know I sent it.........

Jeez, I doubt I can recall what I wrote and where I was going. I'm neither for or against censorship of adult material and consent, if mutual is well, the consenting parties business.
It's just boundaries and how people perceive those boundaries and choose to respect them or do away with them.
Interesting ethical ground on which to trod. Or quicksand to sink into.
Personally, what I view here on IFM is just right for me. I've looked at ISM and can't quite click (No pun.....) with that. Why, I don't know.
The adult entertainment business, be it real or CGI is simply that. A business. It exists to make money and it does that by catering to people who are interested in the content. Like a Broadway play. Play "X" does well because it strikes a tone with a lot of people and those people pay to see the play and the producers stick with a certain formula to continue to make money.
As it's not something needed to sustain life or provide comfort or any of the basic needs of life, they need to find a way to get people to justify the price of admission.
IFM does the same thing. They want my entertainment dollar so they offer me something I enjoy, feel comfortable with and can justify the expense and in all likelihood, repeat my membership.
So, they have a combination of attractions that will keep me coming back. Interaction here, whether it's with members, performers or staff is part of the attraction. It's a marketing tool. That's fine and I except that and it is going to keep me coming back. If CGI were to supersede live content, I'd drift off.
Call me a dullard but the films I view here go beyond what I could imagine and a large part of that is knowing the person I'm watching is real and approachable, accessible and someone I'd probably enjoy knowing as a friend.
As I doubt that, "feeling" can be replicated by CGI, Shit. I lost my train of thought.

viva · 11-01-12 00:17:15

hahahaha I do hereby declare this topic unmanageable for me - I did bring it up at dinner last night and we ended up talking about monkeys writing Shakespeare which is how I know a conversation is over - but I will keep that concept of social permission under my belt and mull over it for awhile.

my parting observation? a feature length scifi film on this theme, with plenty of noholdsbarred sex scenes would be really fun to write. and watch. and then after everyone would be all, were those actors real? or were they CGI? Is this film meta? am I real? and heads would explode.

WLV612 · 11-01-12 01:06:23

viva wrote:

hahahaha I do hereby declare this topic unmanageable for me

Yeah, that's me done as well.

I think I'm pretty far distant to the intent of the topic anyway. Can't recall whether I mentioned it here or on some other site but this is the point where I usually remark, "That's very Zen like." which means I no clue as to what's going on but that one sentence has worked well for me for many, many years and granted my, "Enigmatic" status all over the world when in short sums, I'm merely vacuous.

blissed · 11-01-12 02:05:04

W ultimately if a "real" 3d animation costs no more to make than it does to write a book then the cost is the same as writing fiction wether your making a feature length spectacular or short, and like written fiction they'll be tons of it around and a long tale of the popular will make a small amount of money to the lucky very most popular making a lot money.

Viva I like the idea of a sci-fi movie where gene therapy means instead of just healing cuts and injuries back to our original form as we do now, we can actively engage that healing process to grow and morph into anything we desire (tentacles optional I fancy a kind of soap opera setting of ordinary life in the future where we're oldies that disapprove of everything but still morph and look 15 where as the youngsters are more adventurous, changing sex or becoming large flying birds with aposing thumb feet. Yeah set in an average sapphic family house with 3 kids and 2 mums who are told by a few people that they are strange and then watch how the introduction of the morphing technology changes the community until by the end of the movie the old guy who was their biggest critic is the young beautiful woman he always wanted to be, complaining about how his kids are a menagerie of strange creatures and aliens and that he was now genuinely scared

.

viva · 11-01-12 02:10:42

blissed wrote:

by the end of the movie the old guy who was their biggest critic is the young beautiful woman he always wanted to be, complaining about how his kids are a menagerie of strange creatures and aliens and that he was now genuinely scared
.

HILARIOUS!

blissed · 12-01-12 21:44:10

Your gonna be in it and it's gonna be a musical

.

Redmango · 11-02-12 10:29:57

I hadn't checked these forums in a while, and just caught up. I guess I really poked the bear. I didn't mean to melt anybody's brain. Still, I have some pennies to add...

artemesia wrote:

Going back to emotions, for me, emotions are what makes a porn scenario more fascinating and ultimately more enjoyable to watch.

I certainly find that the most arousing feature of any erotica is the knowledge that a real person enjoyed making the erotica in the first place. The absence of this element taints my ability to enjoy something that may otherwise be erotic. This is the reason I like IFM. That would be the end of it, except that (as a matter of philosophy) I also believe that reality exists only within my head.

blissed wrote:

If one person can do all the voices and motion capture then the consent is the same as a novel written by one person.

This merely reminds me of a writer's skill in creating characters. I have noticed that the very best fictions contain characters who are true to themselves, who act like real people. Characters whose actions are contrived by the storyteller seem to be mere puppets, and an audience who becomes aware of this may break suspension of disbelief, rendering the fictional reality destroyed. At the very least, CGI film would need to present believable character behaviors. Are believable characters more real than unbelievable characters? Obviously, for CGI, the creation of a complete character means filling in all the tiny details, including visual details governed by CGI as well as substantive details like behaviors, dialog. I am thinking of Andy Serkis as Gollum or Cesar.

Case in point, there is a program called 3D Sex Villa (www.thrixxx.com) that simulates people having sex, and they can be controlled by the user. I've seen the original and the latest version (Everlust), which improves on the original by adding more variety in the available models and their voices. It is a very impressive program, but it is certainly recognizable as a simulation. It has a few variants, one of which is Hentai.

Redmango · 11-02-12 10:38:47

viva wrote:

ah jeez im having trouble making my point, it's all iceberg tips over here. someone help me. something something cartoons and cgi can't consent across the board for an entire gender or class while human representations of that group to some extent can blah something meow?

Here's my attempt at translation.

If I can create a simulation of anything I choose, then what are the boundaries for who I am allowed to represent in terms of personalities and cultures? Is it ethical (or legal) to portray nuns having lesbian sex, or a soldier raping a woman, or a jello-tentacle-monster devouring a Jewish atheist transgender man? Is this a matter of relative cultural values or individual laws? If it's only a simulation, and no actors are being exploited, is this type of thing still subject to any rules, and if it is, who decides what is acceptable?

Is that anything like what you were trying to say?

#1 22-10-11 13:43:12

CGi sex and anonymity

#2 07-01-12 13:26:26

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#3 09-01-12 01:05:07

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#4 09-01-12 03:23:34

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#5 09-01-12 03:24:49

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#6 09-01-12 14:18:41

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#7 09-01-12 16:54:50

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#8 09-01-12 17:49:41

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#9 09-01-12 20:01:47

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#10 10-01-12 00:18:27

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#11 10-01-12 13:36:43

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#12 10-01-12 19:45:51

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#13 10-01-12 22:27:36

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#14 11-01-12 00:17:15

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#15 11-01-12 01:06:23

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#16 11-01-12 02:05:04

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#17 11-01-12 02:10:42

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#18 12-01-12 21:44:10

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#19 11-02-12 10:29:57

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

#20 11-02-12 10:38:47

Re: CGi sex and anonymity

Board footer