NVIDIAs Amazing Human Head Demo

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
[H] reader Mike Hufnagle sent me this link of a rendered human head that looks so real it’s scary. You have to check this one out.

A reader just sent in this amazing “NVIDIA Human Head Demo” clip, which is basically a “real-time rendering of Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan’s Labyrinth, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer), rendered on the new GeForce 8800 Ultra graphics card.”
Click to expand...
 
Rich Tate said:
[H] reader Mike Hufnagle sent me this link of a rendered human head that looks so real it’s scary. You have to check this one out.
Click to expand...

@ 390 x 216 pixels.

When this can be done @ 2048x1536 (or something like that), with 60FPS, and 40 different characters on screen at once, then I'll be impressed. This should have been possible 5 years ago.


:)
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
@ 390 x 216 pixels.

When this can be done @ 2048x1536 (or something like that), with 60FPS, and 40 different characters on screen at once, then I'll be impressed. This should have been possible 5 years ago.


:)
Click to expand...

Still it looks realistic does it not? And your resolution above is ridiculously high to say the least. Good luck getting anything to run that high in a game...
 
Yeah, i want this in games NOW....

And not 20x15... that is a little nuts... I'll take 1650x1050 tho.
 
Narrator sounds like she's gotty the down's or some shit.


Badass vid though.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
@ 390 x 216 pixels.

When this can be done @ 2048x1536 (or something like that), with 60FPS, and 40 different characters on screen at once, then I'll be impressed. This should have been possible 5 years ago.


:)
Click to expand...

We're pretty close to the point where the client hardware will no longer limit realism. Rather, realism will be limited by artistic ability and project budgets. You'll find the latter two limits to be much more frustrating than the former, as they're already taking away from quantity of games and quality of gameplay. Imagine how few projects will exist when people start expecting perfectly modeled and lit faces for all characters?
 
maleficarus said:
Still it looks realistic does it not? And your resolution above is ridiculously high to say the least. Good luck getting anything to run that high in a game...
Click to expand...

Yes, it does look realistic for a small, unplayable resolution.

I wouldn't say my resolution request is unrealistic. There are HUNDREDS of members here who have 2560x1600 resolution screens.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Yes, it does look realistic for a small, unplayable resolution.

I wouldn't say my resolution request is unrealistic. There are HUNDREDS of members here who have 2560x1600 resolution screens.
Click to expand...

Oops, hit submit by accident, meant to hit preview.

I asked for 2048x1536 = 3 megapixel
someone else asked for 1680x1050 = 1.6 megapixel. (and an unusual res) 1600x1200 gaming is COMMONPLACE here. 2048x1536 is just a few steps up on the slider (1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2048x1536)

I also said "or something like that"

I mean, hell. this isn't even at 800x600, so it's not impressing me at all.

when all you have to do is render 84,000 pixels or so, it shouldn't be that hard to do them in real time. (390x216 = 84240) I can render much more than that in real time, and have been able to do so for years.

and, honestly, there were some points where that video got a little "fuzzy" -- at one point, I swear, I could see eyes THROUGH the eyelids.
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
Not really dude. Not uber common, but still common for 20.1" lcds....
Click to expand...

Right. and I have a 21.3", and 30", and 37", and 4 or 5 19s.. and none of them have 1680x1050 as the native res.

Just because it's the native res for 20.1" doesn't mean it's the common res.

This video isn't even 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, which are FAR more popular (I own a web design company, one of the things we do as part of our design is detect screen resolutions for statistical data). Those 4 resolutions I mentioned are VERY VERY common, and this video doesn't show how well, or poorly, this tech works at any of those.

The point about 2048x1536 was that it's a HARD RESOLUTION to create support for, and if they could do that, it would impress me. It would impress me because it's very easy to scale something from 2048x1536 to 1024x768 (which is the #1 screen resolution on web-enabled computers today) so, if they could do 20x15,then it MIGHT be something worth caring about.

Support for a screen resolution that's about the same somewhere between QVGA (320X240) [from around around 1983] and EGA (640x350) [~1985] Does 20+ year old technology impress you? The only differences between this video and something from 1984 is

1) Realtime
2) TrueColor

other than that, it's not much more than commander keen, as far as resolution goes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Video_Standards.svg

You are going ga-ga about technology from the "upper lefthand corner"
I'm looking for something from the "lower righthand" before I am impressed
 
mdameron said:
Narrator sounds like she's gotty the down's or some shit.


Badass vid though.
Click to expand...

Same thoughts here, what's up with her voice? Yes I would say this video was impressive but it would be more so if there was something done with the eyes...
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
@ 390 x 216 pixels.

When this can be done @ 2048x1536 (or something like that), with 60FPS, and 40 different characters on screen at once, then I'll be impressed. This should have been possible 5 years ago.


:)
Click to expand...

Most ridiculous expectation ever uttered...
-.-
 
SpeedRunner said:
Same thoughts here, what's up with her voice? Yes I would say this video was impressive but it would be more so if there was something done with the eyes...
Click to expand...

it sounds nordic

i think its super sexy though, you all are nuts
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Right. and I have a 21.3", and 30", and 37", and 4 or 5 19s.. and none of them have 1680x1050 as the native res.

Just because it's the native res for 20.1" doesn't mean it's the common res.

This video isn't even 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, which are FAR more popular (I own a web design company, one of the things we do as part of our design is detect screen resolutions for statistical data). Those 4 resolutions I mentioned are VERY VERY common, and this video doesn't show how well, or poorly, this tech works at any of those.

The point about 2048x1536 was that it's a HARD RESOLUTION to create support for, and if they could do that, it would impress me. It would impress me because it's very easy to scale something from 2048x1536 to 1024x768 (which is the #1 screen resolution on web-enabled computers today) so, if they could do 20x15,then it MIGHT be something worth caring about.

Support for a screen resolution that's about the same somewhere between QVGA (320X240) [from around around 1983] and EGA (640x350) [~1985] Does 20+ year old technology impress you? The only differences between this video and something from 1984 is

1) Realtime
2) TrueColor

other than that, it's not much more than commander keen, as far as resolution goes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Video_Standards.svg

You are going ga-ga about technology from the "upper lefthand corner"
I'm looking for something from the "lower righthand" before I am impressed
Click to expand...

1680x1050 is also the res of EVERY 22" LCD and a lot of laptops its 16:10
as is 1440x900 which is also 16:10
 
Elios said:
realy then nether is 1280x1024 since its not 4:3 or 16:9 or any 1:1 res for that matter

its not the point it IS a standard WSXGA+ iirc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXGA+
Click to expand...

and 1280x1024 is SXGA

Let me put it to you this way.

Less than 1% of the people who browse the websites we design use 1680x1050

1280x1024 accounts for 7.3%
1024x768 accounts for 46.3%
800x600 accounts for 33.1%
1600x1200 accounts for 5.4%


that other ~6 percent accounts for EVERY OTHER resolution possible on the planet.

So..
tell me again.. what resolutions is standard, & common. Now, tell me which one is "odd"
 
FYI, alot of people have been jumping on 1680x1050 lately; during the hlidays there were alot of great sales on 22" LCDs that run that res. BestBuy alone must have sold several million of the Westinghouse Im running; they ahd hundreds in every store per the clerk at the time and they were cleaned out across the country when I went back to nab a second.

It was not anything before then, Id never even heard of it; now I commonly see people request info on it; about as much as 1024x768.

Back to the topic; this would look GREAT IF they could get it to work on multiple characters simultanetously on screen at the same time.

The resolution for ONE character to be 20x15 would be silly; if you check the resolution of the best we ahve in games today on FPS at high settings its not that high b/c THERE IS STILL THE GAME TO RUN. If they can make it usable to the gaming indsutry, then Ill say its a leap forward.
 
dracop said:
FYI, alot of people have been jumping on 1680x1050 lately; during the hlidays there were alot of great sales on 22" LCDs that run that res. BestBuy alone must have sold several million of the Westinghouse Im running; they ahd hundreds in every store per the clerk at the time and they were cleaned out across the country when I went back to nab a second.

It was not anything before then, Id never even heard of it; now I commonly see people request info on it; about as much as 1024x768.

Back to the topic; this would look GREAT IF they could get it to work on multiple characters simultanetously on screen at the same time.

The resolution for ONE character to be 20x15 would be silly; if you check the resolution of the best we ahve in games today on FPS at high settings its not that high b/c THERE IS STILL THE GAME TO RUN. If they can make it usable to the gaming indsutry, then Ill say its a leap forward.
Click to expand...

I think that's my point.
If we can have it happen @ 20x15 with 40 characters, @ 60FPS, it might actually work with the gaming industry.
Until then, the only application I can see would that it would make single player strip poker more realistic. Can we get angelina jolie in there to be "modeled" ?
 
All of you all are arguing about the VIDEO size.

That's not what the actual head was rendered in!!

They just reduced the original down to a compressed smaller video to display what can be done. I'm sure the original was run at some thing like 1280x1024 or higher and can be changed like the other Nvidia demos or games.

ie: you're all dumb. Sorry it had to be said. :eek:
 
edit: why can't I edit posts in this subforum?!

Anyway what I was going to add... is that if they had left it in the original size, everyone would have to download probably something like an 800Mb+ file to see it in full rendered resolution.
 
Check out some of Henrik Wann Jensen's work on skin rendering.

spectral_skin_bssrdf.jpg
 
wtf is with all you getting sand in your vagina's over this? It appears to be the next 8800 demo just like adrianne, froggy, and cascades. What is all the resolution talk about? This is scalable. It will run on whatever resolution you throw at it just like the other tech demos. So far all three have ran flawless on my 1920x1080 Westy with a 8800GTX.
 
chrisf6969 said:
All of you all are arguing about the VIDEO size.

That's not what the actual head was rendered in!!

They just reduced the original down to a compressed smaller video to display what can be done. I'm sure the original was run at some thing like 1280x1024 or higher and can be changed like the other Nvidia demos or games.

ie: you're all dumb. Sorry it had to be said. :eek:
Click to expand...

How do you know this?
Did you see the original rendering?
How do you have any evidence, what-so-ever that the footage provided to us was not actual size?

If it can be done, real time, @ 1280x1024, where is the link to it? Wouldn't it be more impressive if people could see this run, in real time, on their own rigs, rather than on some quicktime video?

Where is the "impressive" demo?

Also, if you look at the first few seconds, it's sort of jumpy. until they take out the background (didn't notice that, did you?) It couldn't handle rendering + background at the same time. Every time they show the background again, it gets jumpy.
 
w1retap said:
wtf is with all you getting sand in your vagina's over this? It appears to be the next 8800 demo just like adrianne, froggy, and cascades. What is all the resolution talk about? This is scalable. It will run on whatever resolution you throw at it just like the other tech demos. So far all three have ran flawless on my 1920x1080 Westy with a 8800GTX.
Click to expand...

Right.. and all the demos' have been single or few object renders, not something with 300 different characters to render simultaneously all doing something different, that's randomly generated.

Think of ragtroll (which, is scripted) or the vertex-"matrix dude" shoot-outs in 3dmark (scripted) - do that, but realtime rendering, non scripted, 0 pre-rendering, and then it'd be something to go wow about.

a single, non moving head with no hair @ 1280x1024 doesn't impress me in the least.
It impresses me even less the smaller the resolution gets.

I know you said it scales, but that's cause it's one thing.
I haven't seen an executable of this for me to run.
 
Oh.
and cascades
@ 1920x1080 , 4X aa, 16X AF seems laggy to me. Then again, I don't have an 8800GTX, and I'm not overclocked.

(Sys1 from sig)

And adrienne crawls if I set her to max settings
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
How do you know this?
Did you see the original rendering?
How do you have any evidence, what-so-ever that the footage provided to us was not actual size?
Click to expand...

Surely you must be joking.

Do you honestly think that nVidia, a company that relies on VIDEO QUALITY to get consumers to purchase their products, is only going to have a small ass video file (where their logo is blurry as shit, mind you) to show for their 800$+ video card?

They've probably got a widescreen 2560x1600 res file of it sitting on their harddrives for presentation purposes. Because they need something so godawfully large to boast about when ATI whips out their cards.

Next time, instead of jumping to conclusions so quickly, go email an nVidia rep and find out the truth for yourself, instead of creating it out of thin air.

Oh yea, and you can thank me, Mike, for the linkage :p
 
VulturEMaN said:
Surely you must be joking.

Do you honestly think that nVidia, a company that relies on VIDEO QUALITY to get consumers to purchase their products, is only going to have a small ass video file (where their logo is blurry as shit, mind you) to show for their 800$+ video card?

They've probably got a widescreen 2560x1600 res file of it sitting on their harddrives for presentation purposes. Because they need something so godawfully large to boast about when ATI whips out their cards.

Next time, instead of jumping to conclusions so quickly, go email an nVidia rep and find out the truth for yourself, instead of creating it out of thin air.

Oh yea, and you can thank me, Mike, for the linkage :p
Click to expand...


"Probably"
Sounds like a lack of proof, to me.

Oh, and ATI has always been the company for IQ, and nvidia has always been the company for Framerates.

I -SEE- a low res video
I -SEE- no high res video
I -SEE- no downloadable demo

Even if I did see a downloadable demo that did JUST this head at 2560x1600, I STILL wouldn't be impressed. 40 bodies in a streetfight @ 2560x1600 @ 60FPS with this level of realism? yes. One head, not moving, with some light fluttering over it? p.Shaw.
 
lol, what is your personal vendetta? Are you this angry inside that you have to compensate for something? If you saw a 240x120 video of a Bugatti Veyron going 250mph, would you say that is just a micromachines car and it was only going 1:12 the speed? :confused:
 
I have to agree with CyberDeus-RagDoll.

Until nVidia shows a smoothly running high-res demo or video at the resolutions I play my games at then it don't mean beans to me.

Don't get me wrong, I think the video is rather cool and I have distributed the [H]ard|OCP link to several people who would take interest in this. I just don't care to see horse & pony shows which lack real-world performance measuring.
 
w1retap said:
lol, what is your personal vendetta? Are you this angry inside that you have to compensate for something? If you saw a 240x120 video of a Bugatti Veyron going 250mph, would you say that is just a micromachines car and it was only going 1:12 the speed? :confused:
Click to expand...



No, and that's a stupid analogy.

The PROPER analogy would be, if I saw a veyron going 10 mph, when I know (first hand) that it can go MUCH faster)

A veyron, with its 1,001 horsepower, (which I've PERSONALLY DRIVEN) does not impress me @ 10mph

an 8800GTX with it's 768MB ram and super fast processing capability, doesn't impress me
when it's drawing ONE character at a low resolution.

Thank you so much for proving that you don't understand what the hell I'm talking about.

A small video of a veyron @ 250mph is STILL a veyron @ 250mph

a video of a the output of a display card that can output what I know the 8800 can do (BILLIONS of "texels" a second) doing oh.. what ... MAYBE 2.5 million "texels"/second , doesn't impress me

Wow! So, it's being asked to run at 1% of it's potential! that's AMAZING!

So, like I said.. show me something that saturates the card. I *KNOW* the card can do that head at 2048x1536 or 2560x1600 or 3840x2400, but until I -SEE- that, I'm not impressed.

BTW, why would i have a vendetta against nvidia? Look at sig
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
This video isn't even 800x600 or 1024x768 or 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, which are FAR more popular (I own a web design company, one of the things we do as part of our design is detect screen resolutions for statistical data). Those 4 resolutions I mentioned are VERY VERY common
Click to expand...

It all depends on the user base. For the past 3 months worth of 30-40,000 hits for a website I've created:

1. 1024x768 - 54.59%
2. 800x600 - 13.9%
3. 1280x1024 - 12.77%
6. 1440x900 - 2.59%
8. 1680x1050 - 1.19%
9. 1600x1200 - 0.71%
x. 2048x1536 - 0%

Doesn't look like 1600x1200 is too common on this website. Maybe it is on yours, but you can't use that to make broad generalizations.
 
Molgera said:
It all depends on the user base. For the past 3 months worth of 30-40,000 hits for a website I've created:

1. 1024x768 - 54.59%
2. 800x600 - 13.9%
3. 1280x1024 - 12.77%
6. 1440x900 - 2.59%
8. 1680x1050 - 1.19%
9. 1600x1200 - 0.71%
x. 2048x1536 - 0%

Doesn't look like 1600x1200 is too common on this website. Maybe it is on yours, but you can't use that to make broad generalizations.
Click to expand...

Where are 4,5, & 7 ?

By your own admission, one specialty website will have a different user base than the average. A high-res photo site, for example, might have a skewed result than a site for chicken recipes.

My numbers are my average across ~185 websites, the smallest of which received only 4k hits in april, and some of the largers, such as one which received 134,000 hits in april. I don't know which specific client has the largest hit # without going through all 185 logs :)

My statistical data is comprised based on results from somewhere around 5 million hits per month. If I could get my hosting clients who do their own sites to include this same script, I'd have even more data (because then it'd be 1000s of sites, with even more millions of hits)

Either way, you re-affirm my point, in your example, 1280x1024 gets over 1000% more traffic than 1680x1050, making it FAR more common. I'd say any res that gets over 10% of the userbase is significant enough to consider important to design for. 1.19% and 0.71% aren't significant, and are therefore "uncommon, and rare" My larger sampling of statistical data shows 1600x1200 to be much more prolific than your example, but even with that, I do NOT design sites for 16x12, because it's not a large enough part of the pie. I'm looking forward to the day when 10x7 is usurped by 12x10, or 14x9, or whichever, but, nowadays, 10x7 is the #1 resolution, so it's what I design for, unless it's an "e-commerce" site then we scale back to 8x6


The 4 resolutions I Mentioned (8x6, 10x7, 12x10, 16x12) make up, in YOUR numbers, 81.97% of all net traffic for your site.

In my numbers, it accounted for ~92% of all traffic (from a larger sampling)

The other thing you said is "Depends on your user base"
Well, I ask you then.. How many people run their 8800GTS/X/ULTRA @ 640x400, 320x200, or whichever.. Now, how many, percentage wise, would you say run at AT LEAST 1280x1024 (or 1440x900, or 1680x1050, or anything up that ladder) Would you say.. that.. at least 95% of 8800 series users are running "HIGH" resolution, would that be a fair thing to agree upon?

SO, since the video is showing off the capabilities of the hardware, should it not, at the very least, be run at the minimum resolution the card supports (800x600, AFAIK) if not, at least, the MOST COMMON RESOLUTION on the planet? (10x7) ?

Your posting just verifies that people don't run at low res.
 
You seriously are ridiculous. It is just a tech demo. Don't have a hernia.
 
Wow...I never thought the day would come when I'd have to unsubscribe to a topic that I emailed to [H]News because some nubcake wants to make claims without getting the truth straight.

I wired out an email to nVidia the day I found this, asking about the res (prior to coming to this topic) and I'm still waiting for a reply.
 
I can't believe this guy is having an arguement about how common a resolution is in the marketplace in an entirely unrelated thread.

Time for your meds..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top