Why does the cgi Cushing look so off?
>>556989For the most part it doesnt, the lighting effects is what makes look off
>>556989incorrect sss. just look at the way the shadows and lighting reflects on both - there is much less contrast on the left.
>>556989as usual the eyes. For stuff like this they really should combo face scanning with the mocap. Use the eyes that's the rule.
>>556998they do all that and more. CG will never pass for real where it counts and this proves it
>>556989clothes are too geometrically perfect. the lighting is either soft or wierd but it lookds odd.
>>556998The weird thing is that they Did use the eyes of the mocap actor. There's a behind the scenes where you can see it. But his eyes barely moved, they weren't very expressive. The CG matched what the actor did, not what the real Cushing would have done.
>>556989Just look at his hair, hardly any shine, no color difference, and every strand looks thick
>>556989poor proportion replicationpoor topolgy and skinningpoor choices in wrinkles, especially around eyescheap hair fxhorrible earschin of the skrullsplus it's in a sjw/lib shit movie
>>556989Because it's an illuminati ploy where they showcase really good CGI as being the peak of technology so that they can continue having shadowmeetings live on screen with CGI masks from the safety of their lair and nobody will suspect a thing.3D movies have shittier CGI, probably because most of the image is blurred anyway and the physical filter from the glasses makes the image more believable.
I wonder how Christopher would feel about this?
>>556989His skin color put me off immediately, not that it looks bad, but he somehow had a more reddish tint when all other actors on screen where more yellowish/orange illuminated. Could have been fixed in post. But how to fix the slightly uncanny movement? I have no idea, i would have keep the camera further away.
The still pic in op looks fine. If you didnt now it was cg, you wouldnt have noticed it. No one complained when there was only a still to look at. When the movie came out, EVERYONE thought it looked like shit. I havent seen the movie yet, only the still, which makes me think the problem must have been the animation. I could be wrong on that.The funny part about this is the way /3/ can critique anything with their limited expertise.>>556996The environment is different. Of course the contrast might be off>>557042The clothes were real, genius.>>556998eyes are real. >>557044thinner hair wont make this look more realistic. You're nitpicking to nitpick.
>too much contrast in skin color>hair looks dry as fuck and doesnt have micro clumping>roughness map has too much contrastthey could probably boost sss by a tiny amount aswell.
>>557068Skimming through the responses won't make make you're reply look intelligent
>>557127he looks more intelligent than all of you... it's animations what makes cgi characters Uncanny, model is perfectly fine, 3 just loves to be a smartass
>>557127oh and that "you're" makes you look fucking dumb
>>557148>it's animations what makes cgi characters Uncanny, this reads like it was written by a literal retard
>>557148you are right, just dont bother with this board.
>>557068>The still pic in op looks fine. If you didnt now it was cg, you wouldnt have noticed it.That's a fucking lie. Besides the lighting, which looks impossible for the scene, there's way too much detail in his face that just wouldn't show up on film, plus they exaggerated his features a bit.
>>557068>If you didnt now it was cg, you wouldnt have noticed it.Yeah, it def looks a lot more jarring animated than just a still.
>>557156>Besides the lighting, which looks impossible for the sceneIt's a real scene. They filmed it in real life. The head is just superimposed.>here's way too much detail in his face that just wouldn't show up on filmlol what? Are you saying they somehow made the images of his head have a higher rendering resolution than the rest of the film?That's not physically possible unless they knowingly downscaled the resolution on everything but his head.
>>556989Right looks like a fucking cg for a video game.Like that prerendered shit they do to hype you up before you realize the graphics are really shit.
Lads, I gotta be honest, I have no idea what OP's pic is about, I looked at both again and again and again, and I can't tell which one's the CG one.Evidently I suck at at this but if you told me it was two pictures of real life, I'd have believed you.
>>557068>When the movie came out, EVERYONE thought it looked like shit. I havent seen the movie yet, only the still, which makes me think the problem must have been the animation.
>>557261Why are they using CG humans? He looks like a caricature and the animation is way too expressive and exaggerated.
>>557266Because Peter Cushing who played General Tarkin in the first Star Wars Movie 40 years ago died in 1994, so CG-Tarkin, no Tarkin or other-actor-Tarkin where the options.
it does not suck. you are just a bitter faggot
>>557266Because getting a dead guy to act is kinda difficult
Sculpt is not that good. Real Cushing's face is triangle shaped while the CGI is almost rectangle shaped. Face in general is too long, forehead/cranium is too narrow, jaw is too square, skull shape around the eyes is wrong, mouth area wrinkles are completely off, skin is waxy and too shiny, overall cold pale skin color temperature. Hair doesn't look brushed but thick bristle and no shine. Real Cushing had stern and concerned eyes, CGI looks almost sad. Wierd lighting
>>557266actually made me consider digging Cushing out of the grave and converting him into a puppet with moving fake eyes, etc. but then I realised that by now his whole face tissue is most probably gone now, so if they dug him out they would still need to render cgi on the puppet.
>>557261did Bioware produce this trash?
>>557266because disney paid a shitton of money for the biggest nostalgia franchise in history. it's all about milking the classic imagery of the old movies and that includes creepy recreations of dead people. get ready to see more of this shit every single year for the foreseeable future.obviously the dignified option was to recast tarkin but that would significantly reduce the nostalgia value of including the character at all.
>>556989Which one is it?
>>557261Yeah he's too floaty.
>>557261This scene was the worst one in that it felt too animated."Wee, look at all these parts of the face we can move!" Never mind matching the actor's body language.Video comparison of all the scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsuvXHGCVXE
ITT: Literally "I can tell by the pixels" You're all a bunch of faggots. Not just with this movie. You miss 8/10 CG inserts but when something's confirmed CG you pretend it was obvious all along
Man, so this is what happens when animators have no acting experience...
>>556989What the fuck? they actually made him look older in a prequel
>>557468The fucking Clone Wars tv show captured Tarkin better than the movie.Fuck even the movement of the kids cartoon seemed more natural than that bullshit.He looks like the demo for FaceRig or some shit. Like fuck, he looks closer to a talking cg animal than (what's supposed to be) a reanimated actor.Who the fuck did they hire for this? Interns?I'm not saying I could do better than this, but fuck I've seen tons of other studios get this shit right. They did it well enough with the Hulk for the Avengers.Did they mocap and then do extra keyframed shit on top? How the fuck did someone look at that during production and not say something?
>>557548i saw this movie in theaters without looking into any of the background, i didn't even realize it was supposed to be set during the original trilogy until well into the film. i had no idea the actor was dead. but when he popped up it was immediately obvious. maybe you need a better eye for detail. yes, i probably miss countless other examples of background props but people are much more obvious and harder to do convincingly
>>556989It definitely looks off, but it's not bad by any measure. I actually think that its a very good example of a CGI animated realistic character in frames with real actors. Better than any other film.
the modeling looks prety solid. its always the animation that kills it.movement is too smooth and robotic. real movement is more twitchy and fast.
>>556989I got the feeling that it's suffering from the same problem that a lot of the Hobbit CGI was having.They spend too much time on the lighting. Because they have an ass-ton of money to spend for this shit, they "perfect" every light source, every highlight, every rimlight, until it's so perfectly lit, that it's unnatueral again.A lot of the CGI from The Lord of The Rings still looks good and photorealistic is because they didn't have that much technology and money to spend on lighting everything to the last detail.
I don't understand why they didn't just keep the original actor and his voice as is, because he was a pretty good fit for Tarkin.
>>557650You don't understand because you are too stupid to read a thread, or use google, wiki or imdb.
>>557127>make make you'reDrink bleach.
>>556989Too much symmetry, no simulation of facial and ocular moisture, too much perfection in terms of uniform etc.
>>557548It's obvious because he doesn't look like the original. The face isn't as round, but longer. That alone was enough to tell me it was shit cgi.
>>556989All the noobs make sweaty characters no matter how, just add less shine and less surface scattering
>>558214Eyes and uniform are real, lmao
>>556989uncanny valley girl
>>558292You talking about Saya?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMbEl49EoVQ
>>557242It looks okay in stills, but it's a lot more noticable in animation, especially when they put him next to real fucking actors.