http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007483.html

Check the link out... animated characters as real as people....

--Death at Midnight

Not bad....not bad at all....actually her face does still look a little plastic/perfect, and we are viewing a really small screen, so, at a larger view she might look even more plastic....but, still her facial, hand and body movements are amazingly real looking.

I think they hit upon something special...  nothing is perfect...  but as a figure I'm supposed to believe it is human, this process makes it easier....   wow..

. . . and being a C.G.I. myself I'm supposed to believe that she is as well ?  Not getting into this one - I was watching this other animation and getting drunk with a dead friend of mine over to his house a while back and it took me almost 15 minutes to figure out that it weren't so real - so I'm no judge unless you break into my house and I don't afford the thought of that.  

As to is she real ? I dunno am I real ? and how would I know ? how would you ? does she think of me at all - or you ? does she think ? Old Rene D.  would have something to say about that - and perhaps ol' Mr GROK himself (Robert Heinlien or is that Hienlein ?)  might too if they could but speak to us now from beyond the coil . . . but yet they do; or they do not as is OUR pleasure . . .

. . .

'Must give us pause'; for far too many proof and too few once living things have tweaked my second brain this past day. Yes, 'Impossible Cheeseburger Surprise' sounds fine this eve . . .

Huh......While it is impressive if she was completely CGI, or even if it was just the face, am I the only one who thinks that this isn't such a good thing?   

Does anyone remember that old Schwarzenegger movie, The Running Man?  Close to the end of it, where they still hadn't been able to kill him, they stage a fight between two guys, and superimpose the image of Schwarzenegger on one of them?  While I am one for the conspiracy theory(and I do live by the maxim that there is no such thing as paranoia, just a finer view of reality), why are we making it easier for the powers that be to make us see exactly what that want us to?  But then again, if some civillian company hadn't made it, the government has possibly had something like this for a while already.

Grasshopper is wise...

Check out an old, old movie called "Looker" too.. way ahead of it's time :) I am still debating if she was real or not. If not, I can be sure us regular sort of joes (and joedettes) cant afford that software..LOL

They're getting pretty dang close. Even they poke fun at themselves for some things being off, even though it's really good for CGI. I'd say it's the transitions between expressions seems unnatural, or perhaps her face is too smooth? If it was a still, you probably wouldn' t know at all.

I agree..in a still (and I am still wondering) you would not know. Hollywood will love this. actors they do not have to furnish a trailer and entourage for  :laugh:

They can easily replace the extras now.

Quote - They can easily replace the extras now.

Not really.  The extras are possibly still cheaper at around $50 a day or so, and easier than what a CG studio will charge.  And quicker too.  Granted, they would be using top end systems, but it would still take quite a bit of time to render all of that, and make sure it meshes with everything else.

*"Not really.  The extras are possibly still cheaper at around $50 a day or so, and easier than what a CG studio will charge". * Really? Where have you been making movies, China, or India?
I have been an extra in over thirty films, shot in Hollywood, Vancouver, Taipei, etc. and I have never had to work that cheaply! Maybe I should have specified that I'm not talking about replacing "principle" extras, ie, the background people who are right next to, or behind the actor in a scene. I'm talking about huge crowds, or armies, such as were created by WETA using their "Massive" plug-in for  Lord of the Rings. The technology is nearly there, and getting cheaper and more accessable all the time.

Yeah, the cheapest I'd work for is Dree-fiddy,  Which reminds me of a story about the Loch Ness Monster ... You see, there was this Girl Scout at my front door the oder day who was sellin' them Girl Scout Cookies. When she said the price was dree-fiddy I just happened to notice that the Girl Scout was 30 feet tall and ... no wait  . . .  that's "South Park" !
 ... but yeah $50.00 Is a little cheap !

Quote - * * Really? Where have you been making movies, China, or India?
I have been an extra in over thirty films, shot in Hollywood, Vancouver, Taipei, etc. and I have never had to work that cheaply! Maybe I should have specified that I'm not talking about replacing "principle" extras, ie, the background people who are right next to, or behind the actor in a scene. I'm talking about huge crowds, or armies, such as were created by WETA using their "Massive" plug-in for  Lord of the Rings. The technology is nearly there, and getting cheaper and more accessable all the time.

Haha, ok ok ok.  I was making an estimate, and apparently it was pretty low.  And yes, the technology is nearly there, or at least what is released for commercial and private use is close to it, but it still takes time.  And that's the key, these companies are going to charge for that time, and charge high prices is something people like to do.

 ... but yeah $50.00 Is a little cheap !

I won't even go out the door unless it's over $150.00.

Cheers
GG

Ok, in that case, the software is probably starting to look good to the movie studios.  $150 dollars a minimum can add up fast when dealing with a lot of people.

The CGI companies have and use huge render farms...  Some of these backdrop people don't need real faces nor legs... If there are obstructions in the scene and all you see are mid sections.. then that's all that is rendered...

Sometimes It is safer and cheaper -(insurance wise)-  to have 10 to 15 mesh -- interacting--  characters pretending to be pedestrians than to have real people waiting on the side lines..   They often re-shoot over and over again the same scenes that did not work right..  sometimes due to safety health concerns..      time on the field is money... 

But  this is not what this company has in mind... they are concern about Video games...

CG people might take a chunk out of the stuntmen jobs, but in a lot of the normal acting I don't think it's going to be that huge. Something about time being money, and rendering that looks realistic still takes a good deal of time. (Moore's law may change this eventually though.) So for any actor that isn't top-tier, it'd still be cheaper and much less time on the production schedule to shoot film/video.

Hmmm...

Interesting stuff.  I've just been to a lecture on the Uncanny Valley last week, I'll have to send the link to my tutor, since he said they haven't yet proved there is another side to the uncanny valley, in other words it may just be an uncanny abyss - no way out the other side.

He'll definitely be interested in this.

The face was good. But the eyes were cold and lifeless. Reckon they can't capture the 'soul' with CGI.