3 ms·
CGI humans are pretty weak, but most mainstream TV and movies have a lot of background CGI that is very well done.
by barrkel 5y ago
CGI humans are pretty weak, but most mainstream TV and movies have a lot of background CGI that is very well done.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoObjects mostly just sit there, or move in more predictable ways. But when it comes to faces and bodies, we're super-tuned to facial detail, and are heavily primed to read emotions and context from facial details and from posture. So if any part of that falls into uncanny valley, the whole experience looks wrong. Back when animations were done by hand, Disney's animators handled this by rotoscoping (drawing over...) live action, which created very convincing results even when the movements were exaggerated for effect. Doing the same with CGI without a template is an unbelievably difficult challenge. It's much easier to create cartoonish exaggerations than to get spot-on perfect realism.
- thereddaikon 5y agoThe best results I've seen are analogous to a modern version of rotoscoping. It involves creating a fully animated 3d model of a person and then using a well trained deep fake of the actor's face in combination. Youtuber Shamook did just that with the finale of the Mandalorian season 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrHXA2cSpNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrHXA2cSpNU He actually got a job with ILM out of it. The future of CGI actors will probably involve a fusion of techniques like this in order to get it right.