Watching some of the latest CG based movies, the quality and realism of the characters, environments, and so on is getting closer and closer to be being indistinguihable from Computers and real actors/acctresses, large movie studio lot effect sets, etc.

It's not to the point right now that you can't instantly tell one from another, but is getting close, very close.

I guess the questions are:

1. How much longer before real actors and actresses are permanently replaced by computer generated models?

2. Is this a good thing?

Personally, I think it is, as movies could be based around characters and settings never before physically possible

3. What are we going to do without our over temperamental star's and starlette's egos, poor parenting, and emotional breakdowns?
Drug abuse, suicides, and the collapse of "the other haves" and have nots...etc. etc.

4. What of the Hollyweird plastic surgery industry, fake boob factories, and the like? How far will all that collapse?

5.

6....7....etc.

Thoughts, ideas, comments?

 

Hey BMG...you remember in the 80's when music was rocking electric drums, synthesizers, and guitar synths? Then along comes Stevie Ray Vaughn with his Strat, a Tube Screamer, and some Fender amps and puts the music world on it's ***. I don't think we will have actual actors being replaced by CG unless they chose to. But for what it is worth, Angelina Jolieis a great example of the potential future...[sm=devilgrin.gif]

 

I hear what you are saying, and see a point you are making, but in your metaphor you are comparing a style, not a totally new horizon.

Least that's my "thinking" at the moment.

 

I'm not sure it will ever happen, butI see your point. CG is some cool stuff and it's looking more real as it goes.I still like real life stunts and actors.

 

Immage has been deleted by photobucket BOOOO!!![:@]


They will more than likely commplement, rather than compete with each other.

For special effects, it might go over to the CG side, but I can't immagine a drama, or a romantic comedy being more cost effective to make in CG than by getting some good, no name up and coming actors.

 

you know it really all depends.....there is a few things that have to be overcome...this is actually for robots but applies to CG as well...

https://cbrforum.com/m_445700/mpage_.../tm.htm#445700

....for CG it's about the eyes...as good as you can make a model, the eyes are the hardest part to get right....as a human we can look at eyes and tell if there is life behind them...it's what developers have been struggling with for years...unfortunately, it's not there yet...

now i have seen some impressive eye models, but they were models focused SOLELY on overcoming the uncanny valley and not the whole...the problem is trying to have realistic eyes in conjunction with movement....usually one or the other suffers...until they get that panned out, we will never go the way of CG as a main force, now it's just "cool".....

however, i do see them getting very close...watching videogames (where it first really became a huge deal)...it is getting better exponentially year over year....

the thing now, IMO is that our eyes give so much expression, that even a perfectly fluid photorealistic CG scene with a person having bad eyes will completely ruin the effect....and thus, actors will always have one up on a model....

btw...great topic, i could talk about CG stuff forever...i am a huge fan...i could also post some good pictures of uncanny valley vs. good CG...let me know...

 

Good points and please post away.

Some other points I would like to make:

By going full CG, the cost and technology will be and in some cases already are better than real life effects.

You are right the "human" element is missing from expressions from not just the eyes, but scowls, smiles, moments of refelction during conversations between characters.

I see these few problems as more budget and time limited rather than technology oriented, at least at this time.

I have seen some individual shots and short scenes of CG graphics based movies that when given the time the artists got to within
a microhair of being "real".

The real benefit as I see it, is that with all CG based actors, actresses, sets, effects, and scene objects as a whole is you put
the story and whole artisitic concept in the hands of the poeple with the initial and clear ideas of what they want to create.

There is no compromise, or soon won;t be any limitations based on how good or bad the acting is, how that shot or take turned out,
etc.

You do one take, and then fine tune to the 'nth degree.

You don't have a shot ruined because the star of the show momentarily lost their heroin buzz whilst thinking of how they didn't get
only the green M&M's that morning in their trailer, as specified in their contract.

In other words, no silliness from the outer edges of the egos inherent in most of hollyweird showbiz people.

You can create exactly what you want...nothing...no veils clouding the ideas.

And speaking of eyes, have you ever noticed how most actors eyes are hugely dilated, even in a very sun lit or brightly lighted scenes?

They are all on some kind of dope.

 

alright...fun...discussion time.....

i don't know if the numbers work on the whole cost thing? i could be very wrong....my concern is this....actors still need to voice the characters and although they may not be able to demand as high of salaries for voice work versus acting it will still be high...either way actors are still going to be there....

from a technical side...i know the rendering of Monsters Inc. back in the day was insane...the amount of time to render a single frame of a 30 fps movie, so 1/30 of a second....for Sully the main character with the hair (specifically the one where he's in the snow) was something like 32 hours for that 1/30 of a second....now you can do the math...but the time and computing power to render something like that is incredible....and as things get more lifelike, this will only grow...even further, with increased physics engines being added to the mix, the complexity will get larger and larger...

that being said, of course technology will progress as well, but as we can see from video games, ala Crysis, the design and art can evolve faster than the hardware....


as for time and budget, i also agree to an extent for the reasons i laid out above...however i still think there is a glass ceiling we are trying to get above...an example being the uncanny valley....i have yet to see a TRULY convincing face, even if it's just facial work that would make me look twice in MOVEMENT...in stills, i have been fooled....but in motion, there is soooo much to consider...although it may fool you for 30 seconds...something gives it away...and once you know, you can't ignore it....

i think the HARDEST thing, now this is only my opinion...is making something look really natural...let me try to explain...where you focus on an object like a face or an animal and concentrate to make THAT piece look real, you can get VERY close...but the problem is when you zoom out, that detail is lost and somehow it doesn't look right....animators need to worry about how to maintain that perception of reality when their main focus of the scene isn't only a face or an isolated subject...things are not reacting together well enough yet....at some points you see glimpses...but it's not there yet...

as for the creative side...i agree 100%....with all of the artistic

 

Special effects are mearly a band-aid for lousy storytelling. Some animated movies are very good, this should tell you how little we need a $20 million per picture movie star.

 

[quote]ORIGINAL: ffingers

alright...fun...discussion time.....

i don't know if the numbers work on the whole cost thing? i could be very wrong....my concern is this....actors still need to voice the characters and although they may not be able to demand as high of salaries for voice work versus acting it will still be high...either way actors are still going to be there....

from a technical side...i know the rendering of Monsters Inc. back in the day was insane...the amount of time to render a single frame of a 30 fps movie, so 1/30 of a second....for Sully the main character with the hair (specifically the one where he's in the snow) was something like 32 hours for that 1/30 of a second....now you can do the math...but the time and computing power to render something like that is incredible....and as things get more lifelike, this will only grow...even further, with increased physics engines being added to the mix, the complexity will get larger and larger...

that being said, of course technology will progress as well, but as we can see from video games, ala Crysis, the design and art can evolve faster than the hardware....


as for time and budget, i also agree to an extent for the reasons i laid out above...however i still think there is a glass ceiling we are trying to get above...an example being the uncanny valley....i have yet to see a TRULY convincing face, even if it's just facial work that would make me look twice in MOVEMENT...in stills, i have been fooled....but in motion, there is soooo much to consider...although it may fool you for 30 seconds...something gives it away...and once you know, you can't ignore it....

i think the HARDEST thing, now this is only my opinion...is making something look really natural...let me try to explain...where you focus on an object like a face or an animal and concentrate to make THAT piece look real, you can get VERY close...but the problem is when you zoom out, that detail is lost and somehow it doesn't look right....animators need to worry about how to maintain that perception of reality when their main focus of the scene isn't only a face or an isolated subject...things are not reacting together well enough yet....at some points you see glimpses...but it's not there yet...

as for the creative side...i agree