Government Funded Face Cloning

[Gentle Fury]

thats creepy putting the girls facial animation onto the guy. I noticed Disney was one of the researchers...looks like it is also entertainment based ;)

[Dennik]

That will make Robert Zemeckis happy. :rolleyes:

[Gentle Fury]

That will make Robert Zemeckis happy. :rolleyes:


That's for sure...no more zombie mannequins you are supposed to care about!!

[Dennik]

That's for sure...no more zombie mannequins you are supposed to care about!!

Which brings back the question. Why CG?
Seriously, LOTR had the best reason to use Mocap and they did it right. They used mocap when they had to, they used CG when they had to. And it was done well, to tell a story.
Now having virtual actors that are (almost) identical to the real actors only zombified, that doesn't make any sense to me.
If you want to be so darn close to the performance of the real actor, use the real actor, make the rest CG, and use a cg double for the action - imposible to do stunts.
"Performance - Capture" is just plain stupid as a concept.

[Gentle Fury]

Which brings back the question. Why CG?
Seriously, LOTR had the best reason to use Mocap and they did it right. They used mocap when they had to, they used CG when they had to. And it was done well, to tell a story.
Now having virtual actors that are (almost) identical to the real actors only zombified, that doesn't make any sense to me.
If you want to be so darn close to the performance of the real actor, use the real actor, make the rest CG, and use a cg double for the action - imposible to do stunts.
"Performance - Capture" is just plain stupid as a concept.


I've been saying that since he started doing it....it is just silly.

[Ilive]

I of all people love MOCAP! I have a system at home and love using it. It's fun and let's you turn out quick results and get some quality while you are at it. I do, however, think making virtual actors that look like the real actors is dumb.

It's a waste of a good budget. I think Beowulf sent adult style animation back a bit.
I'd rather have reall Angelina Jolie on screen vs Angelina Jolie playing an Angelina Jolie look alike that looks like zombie Jolie.

[Gentle Fury]

It wasn't really even Jolie that made me laugh...i mean she is so plastic and artificial looking anyway, and she played Lara Croft...so it was only inevitable...it was when Zombie John Malchovich stepped into frame that I burst out laughing thinking to myself...WTF is the point of this whole process??? So you have "realistic" looking characters that look like plastic versions of the actors...in realistic settings doing nothing at all that couldn't have been achieved with live action....WHY??? It makes NO SENSE! So you pay the talent to come in and perform in a ping pong suit, then go into a sound booth and provide a vocal track..then you pay thousands of artists to create what 10 set builders and a crew of lighters could have created in 1/100th the time. It is just a practice in excess! I can understand The Incredibles...they are people, but they are stylized...there is no way you could ever find humans that look like that...but Beowulf is like they filmed it, then photocopied every single frame, then re-scanned it, then did everything they could to time it back to the film quality then shipped it. It's just dumb.

[Imhotep397]

I'm not really sure what Zemeckis' position is on the "Why CG?" question, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's tied into the complaints that a lot of non-art people have about CG generally. It seems pretty unavoidable, especially in fantasy/sci-fi films, that regardless of how good the work is that when there's any kind of organic moving creature or character on screen it's going to break the suspension of disbelief, even if the subject is something you have never and/or will never see in real life to compare it too, so why not make everything animation with a touch of realism? There's also the oppurtunity, from a director's standpoint, to be able to use an actor like Ray Winstone that doesn't look the part, but definitely could voice act the role; it starts to break down the barriers of "Having to" cast somebody for a role they aren't suited for in one way or another.

I don't think his intent is ever to make the stuff look real, just "almost real." Obviously the process isn't perfect, but I also don't think you can get to a really good solution without making mistakes or making the first attempt(s), no matter how futile, in the first place.

[Gentle Fury]

I'm not really sure what Zemeckis' position is on the "Why CG?" question, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's tied into the complaints that a lot of non-art people have about CG generally. It seems pretty unavoidable, especially in fantasy/sci-fi films, that regardless of how good the work is that when there's any kind of organic moving creature or character on screen it's going to break the suspension of disbelief, even if the subject is something you have never and/or will never see in real life to compare it too, so why not make everything animation with a touch of realism? There's also the oppurtunity, from a director's standpoint, to be able to use an actor like Ray Winstone that doesn't look the part, but definitely could voice act the role; it starts to break down the barriers of "Having to" cast somebody for a role they aren't suited for in one way or another.

I don't think his intent is ever to make the stuff look real, just "almost real." Obviously the process isn't perfect, but I also don't think you can get to a really good solution without making mistakes or making the first attempt(s), no matter how futile, in the first place.


That would be the opposite of the discussion that has started here. We were talking about what is the point of making a CG Character that looks identical to it's vocal counterpart.

[roadRUNN3R]

Which brings back the question. Why CG?
Seriously, LOTR had the best reason to use Mocap and they did it right. They used mocap when they had to, they used CG when they had to. And it was done well, to tell a story.
Now having virtual actors that are (almost) identical to the real actors only zombified, that doesn't make any sense to me.
If you want to be so darn close to the performance of the real actor, use the real actor, make the rest CG, and use a cg double for the action - imposible to do stunts.
"Performance - Capture" is just plain stupid as a concept.

Aye, another good example would be the Benjamin Button movie. CG used for recreating somebody virtually only in the moments when it's needed. The other option would be to go on a wild goose chase trying to look for people that look like Brad Pitt, in different stages of aging lol. I love when CG can compensate in these situations and that's exactly one of it's great functions :)

I love CG, but the idea of cloning somebody when you can really use HIM makes no sence in the entertainment industry :P You can do it once or twice just to demonstrate that you can do it, but lol on the other hand once you do that, you're gonna want to demonstrate that you can do it even better than before and then again and again and again :P

[windarr]

I agree that Beowulf was a bit of excess, Ray Winstone may not have looked the part...but why not say, "Hey Ray, let's go pump you up," then use some creative camera work, makeup, etc. to make him look the part. Eddie Murphy looked great as the fat Nutty Professor in the fat suit. Why not a muscle suit to help out where needed/if needed? Christian Bale lost a ton of weight, made himself look anorexic for that one part, and if they can make Hagrid look huge with Frodo and Sam looking small. I'm sure they could have done it for Ray to play Beowulf if they had to have him muscled and tall.

[GreenSuperMonkey]

This debate can be explained up very easily... it's about the money. For a Beowulf type movie it is significantly cheaper to make that movie digitally with motion capture than it is to shoot the with physical production techniques. To put this in perspective -- if you were to shoot Beowulf as a live action movie you would be looking at approximately 90-120 days of of shooting at a cost of $100,000 to $150,000 per a day of production. For a motion capture production you are looking at 1/3 to 1/4 of the daily costs and approximately half the number of shoot days. This doesn't include the build out of sets and props for a live action movie which are done by armies of union employees -- It is significantly cheaper to pay non-union artists to sit in chairs and build these assets digitally. I could go on and on with comparative costs between motion capture productions and live action production budgets -- but it is best summed up by looking at the total cost of production.

Here are a few examples--
Live Action
Dark Knight $185 Million
Avatar $250 Million
Spiderman 3 $265 Million
Pirates of the Carribean Dead Mans Chest $225 Million
Cronicles of Narnia $225 Million

Performance Capture Movies
Beowulf $150 Million
Monster House $75 Million
Final Fantasy $137 Million
Polar Express $165 Million

When it comes to epic style movies, it is just simply cheaper to do them as mocap movies instead of live action. There are of course some exceptions to this, but it generally invovles going overseas and taking advantage of cheaper labor, tax breaks, and other financial incentives (Lord of the Rings made all three films for under $300 Million). However, being employed in the fx/film industries myself, I would like to keep as much work in the US as possible and my argument is obviously bias to that idea.

This is all underscored by the fact that there is a lot more creative freedom when directing a mocap movie vs. a live action one because you are not limited to physical realities. As a film maker you can just do more cool stuff. I can not, however, argue the problem of zombie characters... it is an issue -- but that is getting better every day. It will not be long before Benjamin Button quaility characters will be common place in performance capture films. With that in mind, if you were in the position of trying to make an epic movie and you are weighing cost vs creative freedoms for film makers... performance capture becomes a very attractive alternative to live action films. As a result, like it or not, we will be seeing a lot more of these in the future... but, man.. I really hope we can kill the zombie thing soon.

[INFINITE]

This debate can be explained up very easily... it's about the money. For a Beowulf type movie it is significantly cheaper to make that movie digitally with motion capture than it is to shoot the with physical production techniques. To put this in perspective -- if you were to shoot Beowulf as a live action movie you would be looking at approximately 90-120 days of of shooting at a cost of $100,000 to $150,000 per a day of production. For a motion capture production you are looking at 1/3 to 1/4 of the daily costs and approximately half the number of shoot days. This doesn't include the build out of sets and props for a live action movie which are done by armies of union employees -- It is significantly cheaper to pay non-union artists to sit in chairs and build these assets digitally. I could go on and on with comparative costs between motion capture productions and live action production budgets -- but it is best summed up by looking at the total cost of production.

Here are a few examples--
Live Action
Dark Knight $185 Million
Avatar $250 Million
Spiderman 3 $265 Million
Pirates of the Carribean Dead Mans Chest $225 Million
Cronicles of Narnia $225 Million

Performance Capture Movies
Beowulf $150 Million
Monster House $75 Million
Final Fantasy $137 Million
Polar Express $165 Million

When it comes to epic style movies, it is just simply cheaper to do them as mocap movies instead of live action. There are of course some exceptions to this, but it generally invovles going overseas and taking advantage of cheaper labor, tax breaks, and other financial incentives (Lord of the Rings made all three films for under $300 Million). However, being employed in the fx/film industries myself, I would like to keep as much work in the US as possible and my argument is obviously bias to that idea.

This is all underscored by the fact that there is a lot more creative freedom when directing a mocap movie vs. a live action one because you are not limited to physical realities. As a film maker you can just do more cool stuff. I can not, however, argue the problem of zombie characters... it is an issue -- but that is getting better every day. It will not be long before Benjamin Button quaility characters will be common place in performance capture films. With that in mind, if you were in the position of trying to make an epic movie and you are weighing cost vs creative freedoms for film makers... performance capture becomes a very attractive alternative to live action films. As a result, like it or not, we will be seeing a lot more of these in the future... but, man.. I really hope we can kill the zombie thing soon.

Wow some great points well made there and thanks for those Pricing examples, if thats true then Mocap could really be the way forward, until they get as expesnive as live action that is ;)

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.