Search form

Digital Actors

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Digital Actors

So I was reading on another forum about photo realistic CG actors. One postee seemed to think that in the next couple of years that they will be a reality.

Why?

I love 3D and CG SFX, but why would you want to make a realistic human in CG? I understand characters like Golum, and even Garfield, but not a human. I think it makes sence for CG stunt dubbles, but after that, just use the real actor. Do the studios think it would be cheaper to make a CG human than to use real actors?

Any way, just ranting really. But if people want to add to this, I'd love to hear what others think.

The Ape

Animated Ape's picture

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Boy, I certainly hope that never becomes a reality. In stunts scenes or effects shots thats ok, but I want humans in my live action movies, please, not some third-order reality.

Hoy, what next.

Ender

I think finacial concerns would be the main reason. Anyone remember Max Headroom?

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

i don't think its finance. It will cost far more to do a cg lead actor, than a real one. Many people forget that behind that cg character is a 200-300 person team. By the time you pay their salaries, it will usually far outway that of a single actor. i really don't think cg characters will replace live action people. People like seeing real people, just look at the reality craze going on right now. Cg will always be accepted in furry cats and creepy hobbits, but when it comes to human leads, It just to cold, and almost creepy, and thats not what you usually want.

[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com

www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]

For those that don't remember Max, here's a little background:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/maxheadroom/maxheadroom.htm

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

to keep the prices down?

Maybe its lip service to make the days of actors demanding 40 million a picture (or whatever) I just dont understand why the dont all split the pie evenly.If a movie makes 100 million and it took 100 people to make it, everyone gets a million?My example is uber simplistic but maybe its a little "rumor" to test the nerve and will of the thespians?Im sorry but all the CG in the world cant replace some of the great acting performances we have witnessed over the years!How bout a CG Godfather?or Gump?Or any number of your own favs?It wont ever get to the point where no actors are involved, even in CG dont they use the real actors emotions and facial expressions when creating the films?Like "Ants" for example, the "rocky voiced" ant looks just like Sly Stallone (if he were really a ant?!)

Even if the cost of using a CG character and a live action actor were about the same, i think the technology i still far from being good enough to mimic realistic movement for an entire feature. It's fine for shots here and there, but for an extended amount of on screen time, it'd be hard to make an audience believe it was live flesh and bone... but then maybe that wouldn't be the point of using a cg character after all... :confused:

Yes, I remember Max... and that God aweful New Coke

How bout a CG Godfather? or Gump? Or any number of your own favs?It wont ever get to the point where no actors are involved...

Well here you go. This is a quote from Robert Zemeckis about his "The Polar Express" movie. "I wanted it to look like a movie in an oil painting, then have all the warmth, immediacy and subtleties of a human performance,"

And then they attatch that picture. Yeeech. Oh well I'll guess I'll spend my money seeing "The Incredibles" again. :D

You can find the whole article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-05-25-polar-express_x.htm

The Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

I don't like the idea of actors being replaced and agree that they should keep CG to fiction, stunts etc. I thought of a few advantages though: Less legal concerns with actors being injured on set (although injuries still happen any place- you could trip on your PC cable or sue for RSI... but I think you know what I mean...). The other one was you wouldn't have the same problem with actors breaking bones, getting sick or even dieing midway through shooting a film. I'm sure the lead animator for example, could befall a similar fate, but it's not make or break as can be the case with live actors.

Here's another thought: are they talking about creating a CG actor and then giving them a screen name? In other words, "this is Buzz Lightyear as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind" or "Max Headroom in Lawrence of Arabia".

I remember Max Headroom. I even watch a few episodes of his show in the late 80's. But I don't think he was actually a CG character. Wasn't he just actor Matt Frewer, in heavy make-up and filmed with a posterizing filter or some type of after effectsy type thing?

Actually I thing that would have been a better way to go for "The Polar Express." To actually film the actors, and let them act, and then go in with After Effects, or digital make-up and apply it to the whole movie to give it kind of pastel on canson paper look.

Any way, what do I know. I'm just an animator, but I do know that the animation I've seen so far looks awful. So once again, I hold to my oppinion that techical directors shouldn't be animating.

The Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

New film starring Marilyn Monroe and River Phoenix

the only reason i can think off why anyone ever would wanna do a film with cg actors replacing real flesh and blood ones is......when the real ones are dead!

but off course CG could never pull it off, i don't believe its the right direction for CG, i'm not saying there is only the pixar way , i believe ther is lots of territory to be explored but replacing actors!? i'd say don't go there!

that polar express to me is like a horror movie in a whole different meaning of the word...yuk yuk yuk
real actors are always ALWAYS more interesting

Peter Wassink - Digital 2D Animator

About Schmidt

This thread brought to mind the opening scene of About Schmidt:

A man sitting in his empty office (save a few boxes and a desk) staring at a clock on the wall. It was my favorite scene of the whole movie. So simple, yet very telling.

Now, to animate it would have been easy: sparse background, minimal action, no dialogue/lip synching, etc.,.

But no amount of animation skill would have made that scene as poignant to me as it was as live action. Because for that scene to really work, it needs humanity. It needs the just under the surface subtlety of an actual living, breathing actor. I cannot relate to a CG character forced into retirement and a subsequent life of tedium.

My two cents,

Caio!

Oh boy, this looks pretty bizarre.

Some of the kids look like stop motion puppets (with smooth movements) with projected faces on them, it just looks weird.

I think the director's goal of making a movie with a "painted" feel was not really a bad idea, but they did not achive it. In practice, it looks like they were looking for an almost photo realistic look, and at that it fails. At the same time, the painted look is totally not there in most of the scenes in the trailer. Specially anything having to do with humans ... the best looking potion was the train going up the mountain, that looks very beautiful.

I think somebody mentioned it before, looks like they should have gone with live actors and CG backgrounds ... oh well.

BTW, this movie http://www.machinima.com/displayarticle2.php?article=413 boasts that it's the first fully artificial movie, no human actors on the film (all CG) and not even human voices (it's all synthetised). The animation looks like something you could have done in an Apple IIgs (at least the stills).

But no amount of animation skill would have made that scene as poignant to me as it was as live action. Because for that scene to really work, it needs humanity. It needs the just under the surface subtlety of an actual living, breathing actor. I cannot relate to a CG character forced into retirement and a subsequent life of tedium.

Caio!

That's a good point Boutros. I can think of a lot of other 'still' scenes where it wouldn't be convincing. I can't imagine a Jim Jarmusch film working in CGI.

Also, I have to say that Polar Express is looking pretty poor. If there's a reason to use CGI like the character is non-human (ie. Gollum) or there's a need to fill gaps from an actor who has passed away, it's a useful tool. I thought Polar Express was going to be a Harry Potter-type kids movie with live actors. To be fair, I've only seen the preview but I have to say I can't understand why it's ALL CGI.

I remember a while back when Henson Studios released The Dark Crystal and they realised after its release that it would have worked better if the main characters weren't so human or rather, didn't try to be so human.

But no amount of animation skill would have made that scene as poignant to me as it was as live action. Because for that scene to really work, it needs humanity. It needs the just under the surface subtlety of an actual living, breathing actor. I cannot relate to a CG character forced into retirement and a subsequent life of tedium.

oh come on... who do you think CREATES animated characters? a friggin computer? No, an ANIMATOR.. i.e. an ACTOR who ACTS FRAME BY FRAME.

The reason you can't imagine this scene being done by an animated character is because you haven't SEEN one yet. it doesn't mean it's impossible, it means that you just haven't seen it.

I know a lot of people who said they could never relate to a CG character and then you know what happened? Gollum. People got upset, they cried, they felt for him. You know why? Because there were damn good animators and a damn good actor behind him. He was a "CG" character, and people felt for him.

-jason

I know a lot of people who said they could never relate to a CG character and then you know what happened? Gollum.

don't you meant the hulk?

I agree. A good animator is a good actor as well.

The way I see it is that a painter could create something that is photorealistic, but what the point in that? It misses out the strengths of the medium used. How many paintings (outside fantasy) do you see replicate a photograph? You could paint a copy of an Ansel Adams, but would it be the same? Likewise, would a CGI Jack Nicholson be the same as the real deal? I think painting, animation, film... they all have their strengths in showing the world in a different way and can be combined to create amazing effects.

People related to Gollum, but they also related to Nemo, the Lion King, and the Iron Giant. Still, I think there is a difference between animation and live action regardless of the blurring of boundaries and that each is suited to different ways of storytelling.

Well, that's my view anyhow.

Augusto, I was referring to "in game" characters, which are gradually becoming more life-like. I'm not much of a video game player, but it seems that life-like video game characters might make the game more believable. It seems like realism might be more imperative in a video game than in a cartoon. If you're walking around for five minutes looking for the next bad guy to kill, you don't have the benefit of a paced story to keep you involved. You're relying completely on scene and character construction/animation to keep you drawn in.

Sioux, from what I've read, Polar Express developers went all-CGI because they wanted to give the entire film a painterly or illustrative look (as in pre-photography, pre-impressionism canvases).

oh come on... who do you think CREATES animated characters? a friggin computer? No, an ANIMATOR.. i.e. an ACTOR who ACTS FRAME BY FRAME.

Excuse me? Who is the actor in Polar express? The mo-cap animator? I think not! There is no artistry (or very little) involved on the animator's part. There is a real actor who is doing all the movement, and that information is fed into the computer to make the model move. Do you not know what mo-cap is? A modeller may have CREATED these models, but no animator "acted" this "frame by frame", I am afraid. One may have tweaked the movement a bit, but nothing more than that.

And for the record. While Gollum was not badly done in mocap, he FAR from impressed me, movement-wise. You guys keep referring to him like he is the industry standard of how photo-realistic animation is supposed to look. I FAR prefer, and respect CG animation that is keyed out straight ahead by an ANIMATOR, as it seems to possess more life.

Lastly, Augusto... Good point about people buying games for the cinematic cut scenes. As for the animation being realistic, I don't know what games you are referring to, but I have yet to see ANY animation in cut sequences that looks AT ALL realistic. There is a feeble attempt made at it, but it looks like hell.

Cheers

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

Excuse me? Who is the actor in Polar express? The mo-cap animator? I think not! There is no artistry (or very little) involved on the animator's part. There is a real actor who is doing all the movement, and that information is fed into the computer to make the model move. Do you not know what mo-cap is? A modeller may have CREATED these models, but no animator "acted" this "frame by frame", I am afraid. One may have tweaked the movement a bit, but nothing more than that.

before we make those kind of accusations, I think it's important to actually hear from one of the animators working on the film. there was a lot of press about how gollum was mocap and andy serkis, but many of the shots that people went GAGA over were PURE keyframe shots.. i.e. not andy serkis at all.

I woudn't be suprised if many of the shots were tweaked quite a bit from the mocap. Regardless, the problem isn't the technique.. the problem is that the shots aren't reading right. This isn't necessarily the animator's fault, it's the fault of the director and animation director. However, remember we're not seeing final shots here.. these are trailer shots, so they could be better in the final piece.

And for the record. While Gollum was not badly done in mocap, he FAR from impressed me, movement-wise. You guys keep referring to him like he is the industry standard of how photo-realistic animation is supposed to look. I FAR prefer, and respect CG animation that is keyed out straight ahead by an ANIMATOR, as it seems to possess more life.

again, there are many shots of gollum which ARE keyed out straight ahead by an animator. I'd say on film 2 the percentage of pure keyframe vs pure mocap was 60% keyframe, 10% pure mocap, with the other 30% being tweaked mocap. Film 3 had more mocap in it, but also quite a bit of pure keyframing. ALL the facial animation was keyframed. And the scenes which people spoke of the most as being amazing were generally shots where gollum was still & his facial acting carried it (the sequence where he talks to himself in film 2, and the one where he's talking in his sleep in film 3).

It's fine if you don't respect the work, but to say:

But no amount of animation skill would have made that scene as poignant to me as it was as live action. Because for that scene to really work, it needs humanity. It needs the just under the surface subtlety of an actual living, breathing actor. I cannot relate to a CG character forced into retirement and a subsequent life of tedium.

that's just silly. You're basically saying that animators can't cause the audience to emote as well as a live actor, and I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

Lastly, Augusto... Good point about people buying games for the cinematic cut scenes. As for the animation being realistic, I don't know what games you are referring to, but I have yet to see ANY animation in cut sequences that looks AT ALL realistic. There is a feeble attempt made at it, but it looks like hell.

Actually, I didn't see they've achieved true realism even with the cutscenes. What I said was that the "best looking" animation in games is usually pre-rendered and it's done that way to be;

a) Consistent with the look of the characters in-game
b) It can be done a lot cheaper than with live actors

While they haven't achived true photo-realism, I did point out Onimusha and the Final Fantasy series, I think the intro to Onimusha 1 got an award at one of the SIGGRAPH conferences, here's the latest trailer for Onimusha 3;

http://www.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_onimusha3_gi.html

(make sure you wait at least until the middle, when Samanouske removes the ninja mask) Also note that while the tech behind the sequence is interesting, the "cinematography" here is pretty bad. The over use of zooms, and camera movements just to say "I'm in 3D" is typical of game animation ...

Again, my point was that because games try to reach realism in their cutscense or even in-game doesn't mean that the public wants to watch movies with virtual actors. There's different requirements here, when you play a game you want to be part of a virtual world, and this just can't be done with live action (like the old Dragon's Lair Laser disc games). You have to go with computer generated graphics, so that's why this is used here, and it's the right choice. That, to me, doesn't translate to the movies.

Again, the creators of the Polar Express had as a reason to use CG the goal to achive a "painted" storybook look. I think when it comes to the "actors" they failed miserably, and would have been better served with live actors and CG backgrounds.

Actually, sorry Augusto. That comment "I don't know what games you are referring to..." was not directed to you. My bad. It was for Harvey. You said nothing along those lines...

Sorry 'bout that.

Having just seen that piece, it is pretty nice mo-cap, I suppose (especially for a game), but mo-cap nonetheless. It is still transposing human movement onto a digital character, and requires very little talent on the animator's part. What I found funny is that all that time and effort went into making this piece as photo-realistic as they were capable of doing in movement and image quality, yet there is almost no facial expression, or attitude in the body language. There is one point, as an example, where the main character shouts something at the villain, yet, there is absolutely zero emotion in his face/movement.

And don't even get me started on the really poorly moving hair....

Thanks for sharing the film though, Augusto... I will just never be terribly impressed by mo-cap. Maybe it is just me...

jschleifer: Where on Earth are you getting your figures from? Are you assuming how much of Gollum is mo-capped and how much is key-framed? That is what it seems like...

Also, you said that "these were not final shots... they would probably be much better for the actual release", or something along those lines in reference to Polar Express. I really do not care about the shots in this film so much and my comment had almost nothing to do with them... You said "oh come on... who do you think CREATES animated characters? a friggin computer? No, an ANIMATOR.. i.e. an ACTOR who ACTS FRAME BY FRAME." My disagreement was with that statement, as there are no animators "acting this stuff out frame by frame". IT IS MO-CAPPED (and quite very obviously so). AN ACTOR IS ACTING IT OUT FRAME BY FRAME with little sensors strapped to his body so that soem techy can input the information of his movements into a computer.

An animator acted out the squirrel's animation in Ice Age frame by frame. An animator acted out Buzz Lightyear frame by frame. No animator acted anything out that I have seen thusfar in Polar Express frame by frame, and to argue any differently is ludicrous.

Sorry for getting all huffy... Nothing personal.

Cheers

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

"latest trailer for Onimusha 3"

i'm not very familiar with these 3D game cutscene animations but this is truly impressive stuff
clearly a lot of motioncapture, which gives it more of a life action than a 3d animated feel
i guess one could argue that a difference be made between the term 3D-animation and CG
i mean to say: not all CG is 3D animation but all 3Danimation must by definition be CG, motioncapture=CG but not (necesarilly) 3D-animation.

in content it reminded me a bit of samurai jack
(a samurai fighting impossible ammounts of opponents and giant robot insects etc..)
personally i find Samurai Jack, animation wise, much much more interesting
because its pure animation.
in 3D, pure animation (the way i see it) would be more something like the squirrel in Ice Age.
the animation as seen in the trailer, is used to achieve realism, and that is something i find less interesting
although in the case of game cutscenes i understand why the use of real actors is undesireable

Peter Wassink - Digital 2D Animator

i'd like to respond to a few points, if i may:

"And for the record. While Gollum was not badly done in mocap, he FAR from impressed me, movement-wise. You guys keep referring to him like he is the industry standard of how photo-realistic animation is supposed to look. I FAR prefer, and respect CG animation that is keyed out straight ahead by an ANIMATOR, as it seems to possess more life."

in my book, gollum is the nearest anyone has come to achieving a believable digital actor, by a mile. i work with 6 or so of the animators, who had to put in an immense amount of work in order to deliver the performance you've seen on the big screen. as Jason says, much of it was keyframe stuff anyway. what's incredible is that everyone thought that was mo-cap.

-------

harvey's use of half-life 2 indeed shows how far computer games have come along in terms of visual complexity. however, if you check out the movies for the game (and many others from, say, E3), the animation is by no means convincing. i eagerly await this particular game, but still, most in-game animation is way behind stuff seen on film. it'll get there though, i'm sure.
harv, if you're interested you can grab the half-life 2 E3 presentation from file planet. it's pretty spiffy....

cheers guys
k

I stand corrected on my Gollum point then. If he was truly key-framed out as much as you say he was, then I am impressed.

Cheers

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

cheers wade! sorry if I came across as a crazy angry animator person. :)

No worries, mate... I admire passion in an animator. Always a good trait. I too am pretty passionate in my work, and in my beliefs toward my industry, in case anyone has not noticed ;) . (yes, I said MY industry... before anyone jumps on me because you read more into my words than there is -AGAIN-, I mean the industry I am in, and have loved for the last 13 years).

I like a good debate, as long as it can remain constructive, without calling people "troll" when disagreed with.

Anyhoo... Cheers, and have a good wekeend

Wade

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

I thought Gollum was amazing. For me he moved very amazingly well, and his facial animation was dead on. My favorite scene, of any scene, in all three movies was in the third where Sam is trying to tell Frodo that Gollum is setting them up. Then Frodo leads Gollum away. I love the shot where Gollum looks scared and sad, then that look turns to an evil grin. Amazing.

Any way, I'll get to my point. I think someone said that the technology isn't around yet to make a realistic CG human. I would actually have to disagree. I think the technology is there, the problem lies with the movie suits that think to get a human performance they should motion capture it. Wrong!!! I've said it befor when Final Fantasy was in thearters, the people looked good till they moved. The thing with motion capture is that it captures movements too acturately. Animators know, at least they should know, that it's not about moving realisticly, but FEELING realistic. There is a huge difference, and I think it shows when comparing Gollum with Tom Hanks in "Polar Express." Gollum they use a good combo of Mo-cap and animators, where as "Polar Express" looks straight Mo-Cap.

If the shots in the preview aren't the final ones to be used in the movie, then thats the studio's fault, and that sucks. I do know that that has happened befor, on Toystory 2 I think. I think they could make the texture and shading better, but somehow I think that the animation is what will be seen on the bigscreen.

The Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

sorry, I didn't see this earlier..

jschleifer: Where on Earth are you getting your figures from? Are you assuming how much of Gollum is mo-capped and how much is key-framed? That is what it seems like...

You're right. I must be pulling these figures out of my ass. of course it's an ass that worked on the movie for 4 and a half years & spent the last year as animation lead, but I digress... :)

wee!

have a good weekend! :)

jschleifer:

Yes, I know. I recinded my comment there. You had not mentioned that you worked on the film. It looked like you were making these numbers up, as one who "just knows". You need to realize that there are many on this forum with no (or very little) experience to back their comments up, and yet, all the knowledge necessary to tell us how the business works (not mentioning any names, but I am sure those of you who fit in this category know who I am talking about). It is hard to distinguish who is credible and who is not. I did not realize you were in fact in a position of being one of the credible posters on this subject.

Again... I stand corrected on the Gollum thing.

Damned pasionate animators.... Hehehehe.

Cheers

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

Heya Wade!

No worries, mate, I know! :) I'm just havin a bit of fun 'cuz it's a friday.

cheers!

i don't think its finance. It will cost far more to do a cg lead actor, than a real one. Many people forget that behind that cg character is a 200-300 person team. By the time you pay their salaries, it will usually far outway that of a single actor. i really don't think cg characters will replace live action people. People like seeing real people, just look at the reality craze going on right now. Cg will always be accepted in furry cats and creepy hobbits, but when it comes to human leads, It just to cold, and almost creepy, and thats not what you usually want.

Not to mention the fact that you would need to pay some big-named actor a huge salary ANYWAYS to do the voice work for the computer generated character. Lord knows that studios just can't seem to use normal actors who people have never heard of before to do their voice work (Shark Tale is a good example of this).

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

Well the new Polar Express trailer is up and can be seen here. http://polarexpressmovie.warnerbros.com/cmp/teaser2/large.html

It comes complete with multiple scary versions of Tom Hanks for your viewing pleasure. :eek:

The Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Brilliant (that is sarcasm). Take a look at the kids ugly face when he says "I've been wanting to do that my whole life". Ouch. Is it just me, or is that really bad?!

This film appears to be completely lacking in the life department, much like Final Fantasy lacked it. I think I will wait till this one is "network premiered" to see it, cuz I won't pay a nickel to see it.

(sorry if any of you worked on it, but looks like hell to me)

Cheers

"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon

I suppose the market will decide. If the public doesn't want life-like animation, then movies like Polar Express will fail at the box office.

Realistic character animation seems to be accepted and popular in video games. I don't see why that enthusiasm wouldn't spread to the theater, provided the animation is believable.


http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/half_life_2/Half-Life+2/1/thumbs/eliandalex.jpg

www.half-life2.com

Square already tried a realistic human all CG movie with "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and it tanked big time. And Hollywood still hasn't learned their lesson. :rolleyes: They should've just filmed real actors on blue screen and then added all the CG backgrounds and FX later like Star Wars 3.

Harvey, there is a big difference between realistic animation and realistic texturing, which most games are neither. I think the answer to your question is that with video games the viewer is actually particapating, and affecting the story, where as in movies, the view is just passive. So the video game player is preocupied with moving, dodging, shooting, hitting and thinking instead of just sitting and watching the characters MoCap around the screen.

The Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

What about that movie with Al Pacino called "Simone" - the name comes from Sim One - a simulated actress. Quite funny in parts as Simone gets bigger than her creator.

Yeah, they really dropped the ball with Final Fantasy: bad story, bad acting, expressionless characters. Should they give up on creating life-like humans? No, of course not. They should keep trying. The technology and skill may not yet exist to create believable digital actors, but some day it will.

Realistic character animation seems to be accepted and popular in video games. I don't see why that enthusiasm wouldn't spread to the theater, provided the animation is believable.

Game cut-scenes might not be a great example, since I know of very few people who buy the game for the cut scenes; having said that Onimusha and Final Fantasy have great looking (but not great written) cut scenes. Notice that these are all pre-rendered, the ones you were showing for Half-life 2 are all in game. The reason to make them in-game is because it makes perfect sense, they look like the characters you are controlling. It would be disorienting to see a human real life version of the game world, and it would be cost prohibitive (at least with known actors).

the thing that impresses me most about the boy schleif's contribution to gollum is just how many different t-shirts he's come away with! i don't think i've seen the same one twice....

:)

you should see the underoos! :)