It's great seeing advanced 3D effects (sub-surface scattering and normal mapping? I think thats what we're seeing here) escape the realm of typeA games and show up on a web browser, running at a very acceptable framerate.
Looks like web3D really is taking off, can't wait for more 3D engines written on top of webGL so non openGL-wizards can get in on the fun :)
Is this actually doing subsurface scattering or just taking normals that are barely in shadow and giving them a red glow? I can't tell which it is (and I'm not sure how I would visually.)
It's approximation of subsurface scattering, modeled by combination of multiple Gaussian blurs done in texture space (there are 4 blur layers plus original normal mapped Blinn-Phong layer).
If you are interested in details, it's basically a simplified implementation of Nvidia's advanced skin rendering presented at GDC 2007:
Is there a review of the state of the art in skin rendering somewhere? Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it concluded several years ago that for realistic skin we would have no option but to use multi layer subsurface scattering? (honest question, I seem to remember that the last time I read about this around 2007-2008 the consensus had just about converged to that conclusion).
It's kind of a gift for those of us who are really late to the 3D CG game and have to play catch-up with all the awesome techniques, algos and shaders that were developed over the last 8-or-so years but who have been working on the web all these years... for once, us old dogs can learn old tricks and still be totally cutting edge!
But personally I think this is just the beginning. To get from 1994 quality (Doom) to 2004 levels (as you say) in-the-browser didn't take "us" 10 years but more like 1-3. When WebGL and "desktop GL" will slowly but surely converge over the next 3-8 years, it will be a real game changer. People will rave about popping up completely new kinds of "3D games" casually and instantly "in the browser". It'll be awesome. It's not too late to jump on the bandwagon and finally we're now also at a fairly stable point where it's not too early either. WebGL in Chrome and Firefox is solid these days. Keeps getting better. Opera is committed to it too. It's cross-platform. And IE? There's 'Chrome Frame' for that (or alternatively some obscure plugin called "iewebgl" or some such, although Chrome Frame should be more sensible).
WebGL and desktop GL will slowly converge? Isn't WebGL already basically just a JS API for OpenGL? Doesn't that make them already relatively converged?
WebGL is a JS binding for OpenGL ES 2, the same version of OpenGL that is used on smartphones. It is not as flexible as OpenGL proper ("desktop GL"), which has more features. OpenGL ES 3 will soon be bringing many of desktop GL's most important extra features to smartphones and the next version of WebGL, and it's not unthinkable that OpenGL ES could eventually take over as the main OpenGL API.
Exactly. Though I think the ES version will probably always lag behind due to Smartphones/Tablets being by necessity less powerful than Desktops/Laptops -- I'm secretly hoping there will eventually be a WebGL that (1) like today guarantees the ES feature set but (2) lets you query and "switch on" full-fledged desktop OpenGL capabilities just like WebGL extensions -- so that we can utilize more/all of the GPU if the GPU happens to be not on a Smartphone/Tablet but on a high-end desktop/laptop. Right now I think this is against Khronos design philosophy behind WebGL -- but eventually one of the implementors (Mozilla or WebKit) may have a strong need for this and add it. Here's hoping.
That's like saying "It's a little amusing how popular these web reimplementations of 2004-era word processors are". Dude, being on the web makes a huge difference. No software to install is massive. You can't link to a program running on your desktop. It's a great leap forward.
Hopefully JS/WebGL will help enable a client-server model for medical image analysis analogous to AWS/Hadoop/etc. JS has been successful not only for its ubiquity, but also because it - warts and all - hits a development sweet spot. Right now the big open source med image projects (MITK, Slicer, etc.) are almost all C++, so the barrier to entry is too high for some people who might be able to contribute substantially within the JS sweet spot.
Really? You feel that reimplementing a word processor on the web is a major leap forward? To me it looks like old wine in new bags. I could link to word processor-like Java Applets in 1998. I realize it's not 100% the same, but trying to re-implement all these things we've had for 10 years in substandard technology just seems like a procession of Echternach.
(btw current web word processors barely approach Wordpad level - the level of functionality we had on the desktop in 1995).
I think the plasticity comes from the ears and eyes, which to me seem a bit doctored.
I think the uncanny valley could be overcome with some subtle rigging to simulate a person's micro-gestures. Its not often you look at a human completely motionless, sans a wake.
The face is cool, but three.js - the engine behind this - actually has quite a pleasingly orthogonal API as well. Worth taking a look at alongside this.
Firefox 4.0 Mac, hung for about 10 seconds with a black screen, popped open a window saying the script is unresponsive so I told it to Stop. It hung another 2-3 seconds, finally showed a face, and crashed the browser. Fun!
High-quality head scans that are free for general use are not easy to come by. Lee Perry-Smith has somewhat immortalized himself by releasing his scan to the community:
I actually think it's better to use imperfect skin for the purpose of showing off rendering engines. I really like how you can see some spots, scars, small details on the skin rather than a smooth silky pretty girl skin.
>why didn't they do a beautiful girl's face instead?
Because it's a tech demo and it's a known texture in the OpenGL community? Not everyone in CS wants to stare at "beautiful girls", fortunately the Internet has created an outlet for such desires.
I'm sorry. I completely understand karma grubbing is frowned upon and I couldn't care less, especially about this post, but I really don't understand how people are downvoting this post. Feel free to downvote this one... I'm just genuinely curious what part of my post above this one is at all controversial.
Am I supposed to like women? Am I supposed to objectify women at every turn, especially in an industry where they're already highly objectified and slighted?
No, you're supposed to read the comment you're responding to in the context in which it was written. Did you bother to read the linked article before you responding?
