just out of interest what do you believe the Cg and CG is Squashy, because the context your using it within seems to tell me you don't really have much of a clue.
when a new technology is introduced the games industry will use it, when 16bit colour was introduced as a standard we upgraded from 256colour palettes. When MMX was introduced we too serious advantage of those 57 extra intructions specifically for colour in asm. When PowerVR & 3DFx came along we took advantage of that... the list is endless.
Cg is no different, it is probably the quickest takeup innovation in 3D Graphics since 3D Acelerators themselves and the leap being taken is JUST as big.
For the first time instead of having to create fake shadows from lightmapping we can now have REALTIME Shadows, instead of giving a fake prerendered reflection we can now have REAL raytrace reflections. When we have a tree with over 1,000 leaves on it all independant that don't slow down the game we can now with Vertex Shaders ... the application of Cg (Shaders) can span to ANYTHING you could have previously coded which specifically should be done within your graphics card.
Its not just about making photorealistic environments, as we can already do that with faked techniques - now we have the ability to add true atmosphere into games by taking what we've learnt trying to recreate that realism for so many years on hardware not created for it and now extend that with TRUE realism.
you want some realistic physics, have the graphics card process the collision have the cpu process the reaction and suddenly you can now have over 50,000 bouncing balls on an 800Mhz processor which all collide with each other on the polygon level instead of the mear 10,000 you'd of been able to have previously with only a pure CPU calculation.
Cg is not just about the graphics, its about revolutionising how we develop games - just because that means more and more people use it for the graphical purpose to make games look better, well that is one of the reasons its there. But when you can not have REAL flowing Liquids in REALTIME similar to that within Maya and Softimage, perhaps add in some grass which will part when the fluid flows through it, add a wetness look to it.
Suddenly you've taken something which you'd of originally used a few hundred billboard plains for the water and just textures grass (or even just a layered 3D Texture - you can now do with more realism, and just as quick as what you were making before.
first thing you should do is SERIOUSLY seperate your thoughs on CG for Cinematic Film and Cg for Computer Games/Engines being the same because they are so far from each other i don't know why anyone who'd be claiming to know atleast an inkling would be able to say they are the same.
you can make a CG Renderer with Cg (and i have already) however you can create a CG Render which is interactive and utilised in the same way as a computer game is.
Games will use it more and more for the same bloody reason we use Pentium MMX extentions and Athlon 3DNow! extentions... for the same reason we use TnL and FSAA.
Because it is the next evolution, and because in the right hands it can just blow the lid of what most people believe are the so-called limitations of technology.
Cg is very very young still, it has alot of growing to do and so do the programmers for it to use it effectively - and i can assure you what has been shown sofar on the nVidia site and in XBox games is only the tip of what Cg can and will accomplish within this industry.
as for good CG, i'd suggest you turn on Hallmark sometime and checkout a series called Dinotopia - that is probably the best use of CG you're going to see for a good while. And something only made possible to the Cinematic Interaction Tools that Maya has,
there is NO post effects compositing involved - everything is a standard prop + the scenes are then detailed with CG.
and i can promise you although somethings you'll go "yeah that CG" with ... there are other things you'll whole heartedly believe are real.
Mainly because the blend is almost seemless and the light rigging was setup so damn'd well that it just makes the scene.
thats all CG oftenly comes down to, Light and Shadow effects ... there is only a small ammount that has to do with actual modeling. When you can fool the eyes into believing it is really there then you can make it look realistic and inplace.
the reason alot of the StarWars scenes didn't work was because they were too clean, and the lighting was done poorly in alot of areas. But then in others it was done superbly.
The Tower Towers is probably CG being used to it best with Golem, i mean alot of the time he'd look out of place because his ambience was too high and shadows weren't case just right - but there are a few instances when you have to just go "OMG" because the artist finds that nitché and suddenly Golem looks as real as a Jim Henderson creation.
When they hobbits are being carried throught the forrest by the Etin ... that was a fantasic area too - because there was a real etin there, but also there was alot done through CG that being said i wonder if you'd of been able to tell me what within the forrest was real and what wasn't.
the way i see you can discuss techniques until your blue in the face, but they used alot of CG with alot of old techniques in Spiderman and to be honest that has got to be one of the most godawful movies i've seen CG used in.
as for the matrix bullet time camera, if you ever get a chance to see a new video from Sting & Craig David - thats how Bullet time should be done, yes the frames are blended between - but rather than split second timing and blending those frames they took realtime from all cameras within the room and then blended 3 frames either sideto get a more realistic movement then added a motion blur just to jitter the frames properly.
What yours left with is either a perfect Still frame from any angle or you have slow it down ... or speed it up.
the Matrix's technique made it jittery and actually a little ugly, not saying it wasn't a good effect - just the implimentation wasn't completely thought through.
quite frankly any technique you'd want to create and i could probably tell you atleast one probably two possible implimentations of it ... also the upsides and downsides to each way.
I mean really they could've for BT just used one of those BT 360° camera's and scan in the actors - setup the models and then have the actor do a motion capture against a blue screen with whatever you need to move in the scene to composite... you than place the model in the scene - setup the lights properly. With a photomap of the face along with carefully setup materials and mapping you could actually get the actor to mimic anything and then have the computer generated characters put in the time.
you still want the real actors look, then take your original BT and then you overlay that onto the screen on the frames it in - and then particial blend on the mid frames. Suddenly you get a far more fluid movement which people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference when the models change.
bitching that CG is overused in hollywood isn't going to stop them using it because they've seen what i can accomplish if it is in the hands of an artist. However it is a very lucrative industry right now, which means that you get a tonne of people straight from college purely in it for the money and buggerall artistic bones - they've just bee taught enough to get them by and they work on their memorised techniques rather than experimenting and comming up with something that looks right for the scene.
still think you need to go away and find out what CG is and what Cg is, because comments about how it is over used in computer games is firstly completely stupid for several reasons.
1) only 15% of all games players own a Vertex & Shader capable card, which although is a nice 1,500,000 still is not enough to warrent a game 100% shader based yet. infact most games only use them to enhance not actually do the work - Doom3 & HL2 are kinda sidelines in this as Doom3 is being held back until there is a market big enough, and HL2 is around a year off.
2) shaders are a bloody bastard to work with, and when i say bloody hard i mean until Cg was actually released by nVidia you have to know pretty good asm & C/C++ to impliment them to a degree, and also know a good amount about howto go about achieving effects normally and translate them.
3) Cg is a fairly new update, but is just like MMX and will be standard in everysingle card on the market within the next year (even budget cards - though nVidiaFX already have achieved this technically)
when you finally understand the difference, then join in the conversaion with a degree of something to add - else sit down and shutup ... cause all your doing over and over again is spreading misinformation about what everything is which is actually pissing the hell outta me right now.
if you play Cg as just purely for adding Graphical effects thats how users will see them - and they'll turn out using them exactly how you think they're being used right now.
christ i bet you don't even know how few titles on the market actually use Shaders do you! only the XBox & GC have the largest collection of Shader games, but with the technology there why the hell should they use the old slow arcaic techniques simply because you think it is being over used.
if someone invents a flatblade screwdriver would you still use a knife on the principal of the matter? i mean how backward thinking does someone have to be!!
Within the Epic battle of the fates the Shadow and the Angel will meet. With it will harbinger the very fight of good vs evil!
