I think it is very interesting that we live in a time where there is now such a massive amount of useful information available online. When I first started using the internet frequently in the late nineties, it was pretty frustrating because there were not a lot of useful websites with good content, and learning materials where hard to come by. Everything was just getting started and a lot of it sucked, websites looked pretty cheesy..
Now it seems you can search for just about anything you want to learn, and in many cases watch high quality video of someone demonstrating how it is done. It is an amazing thing to me, to be able to learn in such a way, especially for someone who is a visual learner. It’s amazing how it has helped me to strengthen my existing knowledge and also helped me to learn new things.
When I was in college I remember many times I wanted to be able to just pause in the moment while the teacher was talking, try something out, and then resume the lecture. I always struggled in school with having to read abstract information, and it seemed everything was abstract to me. I definitely think I would have learned a lot better if my books had been replaced by videos, lol.
One more thing, is that I had a web design teacher once who was super lazy. Instead of giving good lectures, he would spend most of the class time giving us a bunch of websites to look at and learn from. It was weird, it was as though he was making us do all this work so that he didn’t really have to teach or explain anything.
He would always avoid answering questions and just try and get us to look up answers on our own. I can understand learning how to do things yourself, look up your own stuff, but it just seemed he was completely useless most of the time. He would sit at his desk all day and work on his own stuff, basically not teaching anything. I’m thinking to myself, what is the point of paying for this class? I could have just as easily spent a few hours at home myself doing research on how web design is done and saving the money!
When you come across a badly constructed tutorial video or article, you can always look for a better one, with many general topics there are lots of people making videos. If your already paying a school to take a class and you end up with a bad teacher, there is little you can do but bear through it and try your best for a good grade. Now not all teachers are bad, many are brilliant and inspirational. However when you get a bad one, it sucks since your paying for it.
Schools are spending so much time on having teachers who are teaching live and in person, but what if teachers could have recordings of various things to share with the kids, and instead they could talk about it when kids have questions about the video. If more time was spent on generating good educational content I think people could learn better and faster. Some people would call me crazy, what about teachers loosing their jobs?
I think not, the teachers should be paid by the schools to create better video content, it is getting easier and cheaper to produce decent video learning materials. The teachers would still be interacting with their students when they watch the videos together, pausing and discussing as needed. I think in some ways this could make the teachers job more fun and they are getting to share their creative work in making the video with their students.
Now I haven’t been in a classroom for a little while, thank goodness because they kinda creep me out, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that teachers are already bringing cool learning videos they find in to show their students for discussion. You can learn about so much, it truly is like a library on crack. I remember seeing a while back some article talking about how the internets made us dumber. I don’t understand anyone who claims that the internet has made us dumb, I just think it lets us access more information much faster than ever before, so we can learn more if we choose.
At this point in time I would have guessed we would have robots doing all sorts of work, making the quality of life for humans a lot greater. So why is it that we don’t have robot nannies and assistants yet? Why is it that when you play a video game the enemies rarely seem to exhibit any sort of realistic behavior in terms of their personality? Instructions.. A programmer has to program instructions for the computer and that is how AI works.
It would take forever for a programmer to not only create the instructions an adult human has learned, but also the intelligent associations those instructions have with each other.
To make matters more difficult, our language is still evolving. All the time there are new words people are coming up with, slang words, and new ways of describing things.
The instructions are relative to the context of an object, for example if you tell a computer a strawberry is red, but there are different colored strawberries, the computer won’t recognize the new strawberry until you write out a sort of definition for it that it can understand.
For a long time I haven’t viewed anything really promising, back in 2009 there was a tech demo from a well known game designer/developer Peter Molyneux. Milo was a promising tech demo, and I think its well worth a look if you haven’t seen it before.
Somehow they are able to create a character that seems fairly convincing, but how much milo can understand that is outside of the scope of his world is a very interesting thing to look into.
Perhaps when you start talking to milo enough, you will find that he has a number of default things he might say when he isn’t programmed to understand a subject. Say you start talking about 3D graphics to him in detail, explaining how programs work. Will he retain and be able to understand what your saying? Chances are he will only be able to intelligently respond to a few things in context.
Something else interesting to check out in the world of AI, is this little website called cleverbot.
cleverbot is an experiment in AI that can learn the more you teach it. Every time someone interacts with cleverbot through the web, the information is stored in its memory. How well it can create intelligent associations is of question.
We all know how hard it is to have your sarcasm be interpreted correctly through the internet, and if clever bot cannot associate the meanings of words and concepts correctly with all the little subtle nuances in the way humans express themselves, then it will fail ultimately as an intelligence and will simply be a database of human phrases.
When you ask it questions, it will simply reply with random unintelligible responses, which it seems cleverbot mostly does. Though it really does seem to be building some associations, but how much of that was programmed in rather than learned on its own.
Also, it must have some personality programmed in or it will be useless as a tool. If it was a huge database of human knowledge we could ask it to help us with questions, but if it had no personality it might choose to answer us with valid or invalid information. How it sorts information is viewed as a personality to us, does it answer with good information or does it answer with bad information.
If we asked the AI a question about how meat is processed in a factory, and it responds by explaining where we can find a delicious juicy hamburger at our nearest mcdongles, then it is possible the AI was programmed by someone to say that. If the robot was being sarcastic and this happened one time that would be interesting, but f it was consistently happening I would imagine someone programmed it to try to advertise products to you.
Well a huge database needs to be created, and that is the problem. No one has figured out how to make such a sophisticated database, that can actually have so many instructions it can know how to respond correctly.
Maybe someday soon though, we have come so far! Here is another video of Milo being shown at a TED talk.
No I am not talking about the feelings or biological chemicals this time.. In this case it is the company NaturalMotion and their software Euphoria and Endorphin!
I remember watching the tech demo for Endorphin a while ago and thinking, WOW, this is some awesome shizz! Since that time Rockstar games has implemented the video game version of the tech called Euphoria into a few of their games to great success. Endorphin is designed for animating with 3D applications, and who knows how many movies have used it as well.
What does it do? This software blends the ultimate combo in AI controlling animation through behaviors. Think of it as a sort of realistic physics based parametric animation system for characters that is controlled by an easy to configure artificial intelligence!
If your an animator and you haven’t heard of this before it is really awesome and although it might be a bit pricey it could save you a ton of time for certain things, go ahead and check it out!
There is a learning edition of Endorphin where you can mess around and use the software to punch some dummies with variable forces. : )
I am stoked. SUPER DUPER STOKED. Holy smokes this is the greatest 3D news I have seen in a long, long time. We are talking about a complete game changer. We are talking about a new revolution in technology. If you know me well, then you know I have always had a passion for 3D, which was spawned from learning about virtual reality. I always thought to myself, one day I will be the creator of my own virtual worlds.
One of the biggest issues though is creating detailed objects. Every 3D artist would like to make the highest quality model they can, but we struggle with limitations of the technology. The more complex you make your models, the more your computer slows down to a crawl. As models have become more complex, going from a few hundred or thousand polygon surfaces in the early days of 3D to to models consisting of millions of polygons, it has become easier to crash your programs running out of memory.
The top visual effects companies use render farms, which are rows and rows of computers linked together in order to generate the insanely complex photo-realistic 3D visuals we see in films. I have always thought to myself, eventually, someone is going to figure out how to get past this major issue and allow more complex 3D visualization, eventually it will get to a point closer to reality.
I found a great video worth watching for anyone who is interested in 3D computer graphics for film or games. Since I first started working with computer graphics and 3D programs I knew that one day computers would be able to create a realistic virtual reality, not just because of the media I had seen growing up such as the movie lawnmower man, or tron, or the matrix. It was because I had seen first hand the evolution of computer programs, from the days before real-time rendering even existed.
The first few 3D programs I used did not have any real-time capability. If you wanted to create a 3D graphic, first you would model it in a wire frame. After moving the object, the computer would update the image. It did not update the image while the object was being moved. It was not intuitive at all, and painstakingly difficult to create something that looked good. Creating organic objects was an extremely complex process.
Everything was viewed on the screen as a wire frame model, and you could not see the surface until you would hit the ‘render’ button. Then slowly the computer would generate the pixels of color creating your image in slices of pixels at a time.
When real-time rendering came about, it really changed everything for the speed in which a 3D artist could work, and the quality of what you could create. For the first time you could see your model as you worked on it, you could see the surface with color and in some cases even with a texture.
Now rotating a model felt like holding an object in your hand, and you could just turn and look at it from different angles.
There were still many limitations, your object had to be simple or it would slow down too much. You could not view many things like shadows or reflections or any special effects real-time.
At the same time that graphics programs were getting better, real-time graphics had a major impact on the way games were evolving. 3D games became better and better, but to this day they are still very limited.
Games these days look great, and real-time rendering in 3D art programs has grown up a lot too. However there is one thing that is really holding it all back, and that is that you are limited in detail because of processing power.
3D objects are made out of polygons. These polygons have different numbers of sides and orientations in 3D space. They are connected at the edges to create a larger surface. So a complex 3D model such as a character you might see in a film can have millions of tiny polygons woven together in a sort of ‘mesh’ that creates the skin of the object. Virtual light is then bounced off of these polygons surfaces to create the image.
Game companies and 3D artists have used tricks to recreate the way objects and light look in the real world. Yet these are just tricks, and they are all limited in many ways.
One of the main issues with a 3D model is the question of detail. How detailed does it need to be?
If your model is a character that is far away in a scene, and they never come close to the viewer or camera, then they don’t require a lot of detail. You can make a very simple model. In video games this trick is used all the time to make a game run faster but still look cool, objects off in the distance of environments are often made out of low detailed shapes because they don’t need to ever come close to a player.
If your making a character for a music video, and the camera is going to fly right down their throat hole, then you might need a considerable amount of detail. Not only on the characters face, but also down the throat hole, including the tongue and teeth.
When you make 3D art though, it is nice to just build a library one time. If your creating a character it would make sense to make it as good as can be so it is more reusable in the future.
So it would be nice if you could just create a high resolution model, and not have to worry about ever making a low resolution character again. Low resolution characters are going to be more limited to a specific use.
The only reason you make a low resolution character is to save on time and rendering speed. The computer will render things faster with a lower detail model. If the computer could render more detail without an impact, if it could render high detail in real-time, it would mean artists could focus on making high quality content without having to worry about rendering speed or other factors. In general I think that is a good thing.
PLEASE LET THIS BE REAL! Here is the video..
So this new technology somehow renders things in a sort of atomic approach, it just seems too good to be true. I think it is some of the most exciting news I have seen in a while in terms of real-time, and I have seen a lot of exciting stuff. It also remains to be seen, how realistic they can achieve certain effects. For example, realistic lighting in 3D is a complex topic.
Will this engine be able able to handle caustics, hdr simulation, and be able to generate realistic lighting effects? What about integrating it with physics? It would be amazing if they could integrate something like euphoria from natural motion. Rockstar Games needs to buy this company Euclideon for a billjion dollars and make GTA UNLIMITED.
Each object is made of a cloud of atoms essentially, which is how things work in real life too, at least as far as scientist know. The tech demo is incredible to see that an object and world can have such detail so that you could zoom into an individual blade of grass.
I would imagine you can also probably even zoom in on a tiny ant on that blade of grass, and probably even into the ant and the cellular structures it has within, and probably into a whole other universe existing inside the ants atoms.
Although the visuals are not perfect but I feel it is after all a tech demo. For example you have this detailed scene, but the water line looks like it came straight out of minecraft. LOL!
Now can you even imagine if you are a fan of minecraft, that a version could one day be made with this ‘atomic’ rendering method? That is a lovely thought! Apparently Notch, the creator of minecraft is not sold on the evidence presented that this technology is genuine, so an official minecraft hybrid might never come about. The fact that Euclideon is so secretive is understandable if their technology is as good as it seems. I just hope though that they do bring it to market, and that whatever game they come out with first is wildly successful and awesome.
I came across a few more interesting videos. A different engine, called ATOMONTAGE ENGINE, which seems very similar to what Euclideon is doing..
Also a great interview with the Euclideon team which is absolutely worth watching.. This one is really awesome and I now believe this is not just some sort of hoax, the CEO Bruce Dell even addresses the other engines such as atomontage. I just hope it doesn’t disappear now into oblivion!
My first personal computer was an apple computer, a PowerPC edition. I have used and purchased other mac products over the years, but I switched over to PC for a number of reasons for most things.
Mainly I switched, because of the fact that certain programs I use were not available on the mac until recently when macintosh came out with intel chip macs which could duel boot into windows if you wanted. Basically making all macs have the ability to be windows and mac. However, you would have to buy a separate copy of windows operating system to install on your mac.
A few years ago when I had the money to upgrade my machine, I decided I could build my own PC and have a more powerful and upgrade capable machine. For me this was another reason to go PC, because I could not afford a mac PRO, and the lower end macs are all-in-one devices.
I do not trust all-in-one devices as much for a desktop computer, there is too much that can go wrong and the upgrade capability isn’t there.
I don’t hate macs or anything like that, and for many years I loved them with all my heart. I was scared of working with PC computers and windows for a long time because it seemed to technical for me as an artist.
I live on a tight budget, and macs are more expensive. Since they are a smaller market share of computer sales, and because they ran on their own proprietary operating system, less publishers have historically been willing to publish software and games.
When the iPhone came into the picture, it broadened the love for mac products. Everyone on an iphone loves their iphone, except when their auto correct features do something naughty or inappropriate. :) http://www.autocorrectfail.org/
I was thrilled about the iPhone myself until I learned it would not support Flash. Why does this matter to me? Well because I had spent nearly ten years working with flash, learning it, developing stuff, and I saw no reason why the iphone should not support it. All my websites designed using Flash would no longer even work.
However, as an artist I found the environment of working in Flash to be more visual and artist friendly. In particular with website design. It became more like designing a graphic than a website, because the positioning of elements is not required to be set using code. So I can simply place this graphic here, and that button there, placing my elements visually on the page easily.
With html5, everything is written with code, and to place objects in a position requires some forethought on how the page will be split into different images, etc. Making a big change to the layout after you have propagated your design to multiple pages is a pain, even if your trying to use html templates.
Flash is a tool that is better for artists and visual designers, and even better is that you can get impressive results without a lot of programming at all. Flash however did start to pick up a bit of a bad reputation for being abused by advertisers and idiotic web developers who posted Flash advertisements everywhere. In the right hands though and with an intelligent use, Flash can be a big enhancement to websites.
Html5 is a tool which is better suited for programmers, not artists. There are some talented programmers who are also artist that are doing amazing things, such as in the link above, but most artists who are not good at programming might find working with html5 and java script to make artistic websites to be a challenge.
So Steve Jobs put out a letter about why he didn’t want to include Flash, basically it is because Adobe wouldn’t work with them to make Flash optimized enough so that it would no eat up battery life faster. So essentially Apple blames Adobe, and then Adobe blames Apple for not working with them.
Now we are on iPhone version 4G or whatever, and there is still no Flash support officially. I don’t think it is going to happen now, I had hope, but now it seems it isn’t ever going to happen.
Personally, I think it is that Apple computers simply wanted to maintain greater control over what they sell and it has nothing to do with battery life.
Its pretty obvious that the more complex the animation on screen is, and the more processor intensive the more battery life your consuming. Flash is going to process code and draw graphics between 15 to 30 times a second which allows it to create interactive animations. That is going to be power intensive than an html page which is not constantly re-drawing.
Certainly though, this is much less battery and processor intensive than running a 3D app on your iphone. A 3D app will also process code and draw the graphics between 15 and 30 times per second.
Flash media usually does not go anywhere near the intensity of processing a 3D app might, so by this logic of Apple saying that Flash is just too power hungry is crap. That would mean all 3D apps are too power hungry to be acceptable.
The user makes a choice interacting with content that is highly complex in terms of processing and visual re-drawing which ultimately affects their battery life. If you have an iPhone, you know you cannot play games on it all day if you want to have enough battery to still have it reliably make calls and check important emails.
So if say Flash was supported, I think that if you spent all day on websites that had Flash embedded in the site or you were able to run Flash apps that had a lot of complex processing and animation, it would eat up your battery life just about as fast as if you had played with some 3D apps all day. Maybe even slightly less battery would be consumed than using 3D apps.
Apple wants to have their own proprietary marketplace, where everything you buy is through them and limited to only their system. I don’t believe that an iPhone could not run Flash, I just believe they want more money for themselves. Unfortunately that means everyone working with Flash now has a lot of headaches to deal with to make workarounds just specially designed to deal with Apple iOS devices.
It makes the cost of development go up, and everything just takes longer to deal with. What a mess.
