DISQUS

shane xavier · 1 year ago

does that mean that heath ledger can be the joker in more batman movies?

Johnny Boy · 1 year ago

I'm reminded of this film from a few years back... S1M0NE. Anyone see it?

Johnny Boy · 1 year ago

James Cameron is using this technology for Avatar... I read that in some article a few weeks
back.

HDpunk · 1 year ago

we can have new bruce lee movies or ghostbusters 3 with john belushi & chris farley

Johnny Boy · 1 year ago

unfortuately i dont think Ledger can be the JOker again. I think he would have to record
and be animated first.

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

Shane, the answer to your question is yes, but not for a long time. At a certain point, this technology will turn a corner or human ability to manipulate it will such that a talented technician could recreate Ledger's visage without image capturing directly. It also helps that we've also captured his image on tons of reels of film - although this would require that the technology be able to render 2D facial expression into a 3D model to be passed back to 2D. Not possible now, but not entirely out of the question later.

It might also be possible if the visual data from The Dark Knight could be fed directly into the computer system, and if the computer system could plug that information into its algorithm in a meaningful way. There may be too much information lost to create a realistic looking Ledger, but, again, a skilled tech might be able to fill in the gaps.

Unfortunately, the one thing keeping Ledger or Lee or Belushi or Farley from returning to screen is their talent. We'd be able to get the face and body of the actor's onto the screen, but we wouldn't be able to transfer their genius as well.

Sam · 1 year ago

I think there's definitely a level of 'uncanny valley' even with this Emily. At least, there was for me. Something about the way the forehead was moving, I think. Almost a feeling of 'too perfect' if that makes any sense. Anyways, it's by far the most amazing animation / whatever you want to call it. It definitely does raise interesting questions about the future of film, and the personal level, but also a political level.

In the aftermath of the olympics opening ceremonies, with the 'prettier' girl lip synching, the added fireworks and so forth, if they were using this type of a technology, how believable can any results be that are seen without the 'naked eye'?

People are skeptical already about photography being edited, and thousands of internet trolls running around yelling 'shopped!' at every picture that looks maybe a little unbelievable, and even to some extent the level of editing going into peer-driven content.

Of course, as this site is focused on film, the (potentially) coming shift from actor to animated actor will create one of two things, I think. A split industry, anyways, people who 'hold true' to real live actors in film / television, as a puritan type of media, and then the other half using this type of technology. I think you could probably draw parallels to the move from silent film to, well films with sound. It's my understanding that the silent film had a pianist or something similar, playing the music through out the film, live, and the shift to a soundtrack would have rendered that person (eventually) out of that job.

That being said, it's all speculation, and it could end up as a flash in the pan technology as something new comes on the market in two years or whatever.

Jorge Colin · 1 year ago

Do you think mocap is considered animation?

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

It's obviously a blend of techniques since it requires a live person's movement to create the base and an artist to create the finished image. However, I could see an argument that the actor is just another artist collaborating, using his body as a brush and the computer as the canvas.

If we get rid of mocap, and one had the ability to render realistic 3D models, then it would definitely be pure animation. Mocap as it stands isn't purely animation because it requires a real life reference point that creates part of the image for the artist, but once that actor heads home, the artist is free to animate.

Essentially, all thats needed for something to be animation is 2D or 3D artwork that's displayed in such a way that motion is synthesized. I'd say mocap fits squarely under that definition.

aax · 10 months ago

look at "lord of the rings" - it already looks dated as shit. Fuck technology - it will never replace true cinema!