I recently came across this kind of animated porn. First i thought is was a real picture! At closer inspection I saw it was animated. Not only pictures but movies with sound is available right now! I don't know who makes this kind of stuff but seeing this the quality is getting closer to reality. I guess this kind of stuf is being made in asia right now. Why? I see all kind of weird fetishes passing by) But I can imagine that this kind of software will also go to other parts of the world. Pro's: You can make any porn you want. It's cheaper and you can make every fantasy come tru. What do you think? https://affect3d.com/affect3d-store/experiment-chapter-2-available-now/#1 Here is a sample of this scene in motion: https://affect3dstore.com/the-experiment-chapter-02.html Edited by - tintintin on Oct 3 2017
I would imagine that it would be too expensive to create CGI as realistic as they produce in mainstream movies. That requires too much time and money. You can't do it three or four times a month and make it affordable. You're then left with stuff like this, which looks fake even on the basis of this one shot.
I can't see the picture above (if you can send it to me with a direct message I'm curious) but it's definitely getting closer and closer to reality. I would not be too much surprised if in the future as for famous actors in videogames there will be 3d versions of famous pornstars for this kind of porn.
^ You should not be encouraging people to flout the rules. It doesn't matter if the image is shown only through private message, ADT's host isn't to be used for content that violates the image policy regardless. It can be linked externally in this forum. _______ How do you qualify it as "cheaper", especially when you're trying to make it look realistic? Perhaps I'm missing something obvious but if it cost $25 million to edit Henry Cavill's moustache out of The Justice League what hope is there of making full bodies that look like real people and not like the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns? There's more to animation than software. You need hardware capable of rendering the frames and textures and that won't be cheap then you will need artists to create the clothing and the "stars" of the movie if you want, as you put it, to "make every fantasy come true." You're not making porn cheaper this way, at best you're only shifting the labour cost from your cast, cameras and filming crew to computers, digital artists, sound engineers and software developers. Don't forget that a lot of video games of today have budgets that rival Hollywood movies. It's genuinely not my intention to take the wind out of your sails though I do think you should try and think more realistically.
I think the OP is absolutely correct. The $25 million to remove Henry Cavill's mustache is for the cost to re-shoot the live action scenes. An all-digital scene could have just swapped out a model and been re-rendered. And Moore's law for CPUs may have stalled, but there seems to be headroom left for GPUs. Look at was is now possible IN REALTIME: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a28456/unreal-engine-face/ The price will always trend down, so it is just a matter of time. The artistry will keep getting better as well. I mean, look at Umemaro 3D Omega... and that was years ago. If you don't see this coming, you aren't paying attention, you aren't watching the rate of technological improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if someone makes a screensaver so you can donate your own CPU's idle cycles.
The hardware/rendering price is not really the issue. Sure, it may have taken a longer time previously to render a scene and make an entire movie would be prohibitively costly to render (because it would have taken years). But the limiting factor nowadays (in Hollywood at least) is the amount of manpower and man-hours you are willing to pour into it to animate it. That face in the unreal engine may look ok, and thanks to modern CPUs/GPUs may be rendered in real time, but it nowhere near looks real, let alone makes you look twice. And it doesn't even open its mouth. That's whats constantly annoys me. The inside of the mouth/teeth are a constant source of throw-you-off-the-rails, because the lighting usually is so wrong. And the links in the first post: how could you mistake that for a real life scene: all that waxy skin surface... There's a ton of new cheap children's animation programming out there which apparently is churned, but like-like animation still has waaay to go. And if you look at the end credits in movies for the visual effects, there are hundreds of people involved in the digital artistry. And not for 3hrs+ movies, but only a limited amount of CG shots. For something that can be done in-camera in one working day with actors, camera & sound crew... There's no way the same amount of flexibility can be achieved with CG. There's a reason even big Hollywood productions try to put as much as possible directly in-camera. Because it saves time and money.
tintintin wrote: [/quote]I admit that the faces don't look real.. but the bodyparts come close[/quote] Yeah but for animated porn to take over, it needs to look perfect; indistinguishable from the real thing.
I agree with you on that Cormac but the developments are going faster and faster in this field. I haven't seen this quality a year or 2 years ago. I can imagine that in a decade you can buy software to create your own porn .. shoosing high quality body, face, color of hair lengh etc and sexpositions In a few years.. i think this software will be available for professionals with a choice of sexpositions, interiours etc Remember the time when pornmakers laught about porn on video... it would never happen because people want to see porn with a good story in a theatre.
^ I saw better CGI than that 5 years ago. Hell, I'd say much of the CGI in Jurassic Park is better. I'm not saying it won't work at all though I'm curious how even 100% indistinguishable CG porn will woo the majority of paying customers. There's a psychological aspect to consider where some won't be as aroused by CG porn actors if they know they're not "real", tangible people.
Again.. I agree.. but the CGI you mention was only available for blockbusters. If software will be available for a reasonable price that makes this kind of CGI I think this will be used for porn. And you wonder if there is a marked for this? I must say I find this stuff hot. And i'm guessing I am not the only one. There is a big market for anime. Google for anime and porn and you'll find lots of dirt.
^ No, either you misread what I said or you just cherry-picked the parts you wanted to reply to. I didn't enquire whether there was a market in itself, I questioned whether it would get the majority of customers. Did you not start this topic looking at the prospect of animated porn taking over or are you changing the goal posts as you go along? A minority of customers or revenues would not really qualify as taking over. How do you figure the software comes at a reasonable price? Often there's a huge investment in researching and developing something before it can be mass produced at low cost and that hasn't happened yet in your example, certainly not to the point of making animated porn close to realistic. Economics seldom runs before it can walk.I was talking about now and the short term. I had worked in industries with frequent use of semiconductors and am aware of their development roadmaps so you'd be doing yourself a favour not to presume I'm unaware of or fail to pay attention to the evolution of CPUs and GPUs. To state the OP is "absolutely correct" is either ignorant or downright negligent on your part. Being absolute would imply that there is no possibility of being wrong or there being no nuances or degrees in his statement. For a start you cannot just "make any porn you want" as there are things called laws in place - there is an implication that by making porn, it will be sold legally. Can you also qualify his statement that it IS cheaper (note that he used the word IS i.e. the present tense and did not imply that it will or might be in future)?
^ not american either, but ballot measure B is the "condom law"... Read more about it here: https://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/condoms-in-pornballot-measure-b
0) I also was talking now and the short term future. The quality of CGI porn has tremendous variance. A lot of it isn't there yet, but the best of even several years ago is already good enough, I think. The best seems to comes from Japan. Just because what was posted sucked, doesn't mean it represents the state of the art. 1) Didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what was up. But CPUs and GPUs is only part of it. There is a lot of ingenuity happening in software rather than the silicon. For example, blender support network rendering now, and it's open source, so any artistic perv can get it. The lower the bar, the better CGI porn we'll see. It's much like when the price of 3 lense digital cameras hit the $4000 mark: any troglodyte could make a movie, most of them sucked, but one of them was John Stagliano. 2) Can you really not distinguish between a literal statement and a figurative one? In English lexicon, "absolutely correct" doesn't mean that I actually think the OP cannot be wrong via formal proof. I think everyone else (besides you) appreciates that forward looking statements cannot fail to be of a probabilistic nature, and nature doesn't seem to like p=0 nor p=1. 3) As for the "any porn you want", I believe someone else said that. But I suspect that people will just separate the abstract scene graph (how could that be illegal) that describes what happens from the actual models (how could that be illegal) used to render the scene. Sort of how magnet links get around copyright infringement. 4) No, I'm not going to qualify someone else's statement. My belief is that it's just a matter of time and will probably be driven by Hollywood. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to scour the globe to find someone like Tom Cruise, and not have to pay him $30 million bucks per movie? Wouldn't it be nice for a director to be able to get his vision onto the screen much closer to the vision in his head? James Cameron already did something very similar to this with Avatar, 10 years ago. There's no reason why this won't trickle down to the lower end.
I will whatch a virtual Jenna Sativa.. if it looks real! You could even make your own perfect version of Jenna. Jenna with bush, Jenna without bush. Jenna with small tits etc
Yes, just imagine if you could choose a scene graph with your favorite acts, and "skin" it with your favorite virtual girl's model. No one is going to be successful in convincing me that this is not going to happen, and that it's not going to be awesome and good for the porn industry.
[Link]
SirJerksAlot Deactivated User
392 Posts 2/17
Posted - Oct 5 2017 : 8:46PM
Yeah, I really wish this stuff will become photo-realistic and give you the ability to chose your own characters and scenarios. Probably a lot of money to be made for someone who can make that happen.
^^It's not a question of if it will or won't but when will it happen and at this point money is the biggest hurdle for why you won't be seeing this any time soon. Not to say that technology has reached a level where you can make a truly human looking CGI character but we are close enough that it would satisfy most people. Of course the computers, software and technician that can make those CGI characters cost a lot of money. Probably a 7 figure amount of money. Edited by - pat362 on 10/5/2017 8:58:32 PM
This can only happen if the stars themselves give permission to have their virtual doppelgammer depicted in a movie; and since a virtual-only world would effectively put porn stars out of work, where would the new stars come from? CGI 'actors' can't express emotion or, indeed, act. That's why it's pretty much limited to special effects and not the actors. I just don't think the public will buy it, neither for porn nor mainstream.
I don't think the technology will get to the point where the CGI girls can look totally realistic for awhile. But For me personally I've seen some CGI girls/movies that I think look great. Those movies do things that regular porn can't do, like girls who have perfect bodies having sex with guys, monsters, etc. that are huge in settings regular porn can't duplicate. That will always be the draw and appeal of CGI porn. To have/make CGI porn that looks like current porn with CGI models that look like current performers seems like a waste of time. Why spend thousands to make something that's much more easily achievable with real people?
[Link]
SirJerksAlot Deactivated User
392 Posts 2/17
Posted - Oct 6 2017 : 7:09PM
I don't understand why the CGI stuff has so much of that "monster" crap in it. It would be better if they just stuck to human characters with amazing physiques.
^The reason why making a CGI monster or any non-human character is easier than a making a human CGI character is that they aren't humans. Humans may not all be able to read body language at the same level but I would argue that most of us can spot a fake real fast and that's why the current CGI technology is not yet to the level where they can fool us into believing that a CGI human is a real human but a CGI monster, animal or any other effect you can think of can and will usually fool us. Edited by - pat362 on 10/6/2017 8:58:42 PM
In a world with CGI you don't need real actors. You design your own girl with all the things you like. When this CGI stuff takes of you'll probably will have virtual doppelgangers, but when the years pass by.. the real actors will disappaer and you will have animated pornstars and they will do anything. Imagine unlimited pissing or other dirty stuff Edited by - tintintin on 10/7/2017 3:41:59 AM
^ There's still a problem with showing emotion though. In mainstream movies with CGI characters (take Beowulf or Toy Storyfor example), the voices are provided by actors because CGI actors can't do it. It's effective because Anthony Hopkin, Tom Hanks and Angelina Jolie can express a range of emotions using voice alone. What will happen in CGI porn is we'll get those horrible dubbed voiceovers and off-putting fake sex noises you used to find in foreign language films. It's obvious and crap. I don't see anytime soon, software being able to replicate it for real. One day it may happen, but my bet is, not in our lifetimes.
Because that's one of the kinks/fetishes of that audience. To get people to watch CGI porn they have to offer up something regular porn can't really give an audience. That's their niche. I've been thinking...I wonder how well a porn video game would do in the porn market. Would the porn consumer crowd pay for a video game with great graphics where you can custom make your characters from the ground up to the point they could resemble pornstars or celebs and go on a sex adventure having various types of sex in various settings like GRAND THEFT AUTO or some of the superhero games out there. It seems like an obvious idea maybe this already exists and I just don't know about it.
I always thought the monsters were a fantasy comics thing that just carried over into animation. I doubt the general audience (outside of preexisting fans of those monster fantasy themes) has any particular interest in seeing monsters have sex with human women. I remember sex comics such as Horny Biker Sluts which were very entertaining with unreal fantasy women performing bizarre and extreme sex acts in off-the-wall over-the-top scenarios. No monsters, just humans, very unreal humans with unreal endowments and unreal capabilities. They were not perfect in the Barbie doll sense, but it was sexy and entertaining to read/watch this rich collection of characters in their slutty exploits. This is one direction I think might be successful for makers of animated porn. No need to make them look real, because they are decidedly and intentionally unreal.
Posted - Oct 1 2017 : 5:45PM
