Jump to content

Random YouTuber manages superior Star Wars special effects work over that of Industrial Light and Magic


Quintus
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Datameister said:

If I'd never seen Peter Cushing in my life, my reaction would have been, "Who's the random dude with the CG face?"

 

Leia looked great for, like, a split second as she was turning around. In profile, I totally bought it. But the jig was up as soon as I got a good look at her, just like with Tarkin.

 

Again, not dissing the insane amount of highly skilled artistry that goes into something like this. It just turns out that making a 100% convincing full-motion closeup shot of a computer-generated human face is just about the hardest thing a visual effects artist could try to do.


I’m surprised that the majority of Paul Walker shots in F&F7 are so good - they easily beat Tarkin in Rogue One for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RO Tarkin looked reasonably enough like Cushing but didn't move and act perfectly enough like him, or even too believably human in smaller details like the mouth. From 2 year old memories I liked the shot of him just looking menacingly when the DS fires at the end the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

Oh don't get me wrong, that film is a brilliant landmark in VFX.

 

Just making the point that part of the reason the CGI stands up is because those shots are quite low-res and can't be scrutinized as heavily. And it's partly by design -- Spielberg cleverly kept them dark and shrouded by mist/rain throughout the T-Rex sequence.

 

Absolutely!

 

@Holko, I like that shot, too. In fact, performance-wise, Tarkin is great in the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2020 at 4:40 PM, rough cut said:

This is still the best fake CGI-person in a movie, I’ve ever seen.

 

 

 

The thing I like about that one is the fact that it isn't a 100% perfect replication is part of the narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2020 at 1:25 AM, crumbs said:

 

Not suitable for a feature film at all.

 

Considering one of the biggest studios in the world producing a 350 million dollar mega tent pole film thought this was suitable for feature film and IMAX rollouts - 

 

ey1fkbd8yxazodqualh5.png

 

- Hollywood hasn't really set a high standard has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
1 hour ago, AC1 said:

Actually, it reverses all the work, makes him look normal again. 

Not really. The original work is still there, making him skinnier and adjusting the shape of his face etc. It just places his younger face on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarkin was great when he wasn't moving so much, I liked the idea of his reflection in the glass. There was definitely something off about Leia though.

 

The problem with Deepfake technology isn't just about whether or not it's ethical, it's that it's a sign of laziness and an unwillingness to move on. Countless television shows and films have made do with casting younger actors, lookalikes or playing coy with creative angles and lighting to convince audiences that we're watching the same character from a different age. I get wanting to have the seamless continuity of having the same actor over a period of time, but it doesn't look as convincing because we know the trick behind the magic. 

 

I have major issues with something like The Irishman when clearly the technology used was insufficient to make De Niro or any of the other old-timers appear younger. What, Scorsese couldn't find a younger actor to portray them? The CG is a distraction and it won't be anything else until it can seamlessly imitate reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Arpy said:

I get wanting to have the seamless continuity of having the same actor over a period of time, but it doesn't look as convincing because we know the trick behind the magic. 

 

Hmm, my suspension of disbelief isn't really ever broken by a fully CGI Gollum though, or even a puppeteered Yoda for that matter. If I can fully except an impossible t-rex lumbering past Sam Neill, wonder at a BMX gang taking flight and totally buy CG zombie decapitations in The Walking Dead, where's the difference? All that matters is that the special effect is effective. After I've already been convinced by visual wizardry or technical sleight of hand, I don't really give a crap about "laziness" or how a particular visual effect was achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those examples - Yoda and Gollum are examples of VFX wizardry which doesn't deter me from being convinced of their character. My comment on the deepfake technology was directed towards the already CG saturated Hollywood who would abuse this technology without seeking other creative means. There's a reason why Yoda as a puppet has so much presence forty something years later, or even a fully CG character like Gollum almost two decades on. 

 

Instead of resurrecting dead actors, support new living ones!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Instead of resurrecting dead actors, support new living ones!

 

The Academy Awards 2052:

 

... And the Oscar goes to 'Deepfake Harrison Ford' for Solo: The Teenage Years!

 

Another win for the virtual actors amongst us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about resurrecting the deceased, it's purely about pioneering advances in the field of visual effects. You lack vision Arpy. 

 

20 minutes ago, Arpy said:

My comment on the deepfake technology was directed towards the already CG saturated Hollywood who would abuse this technology without seeking other creative means.

 

Creative means? I dunno, this deepfake tech seems pretty darn creative to me. And arguably, it yields far superior results to what has been achieved with "traditional" special effects. What is your arbitrary criteria by which you measure creativity anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Quintus said:

It's not about resurrecting the deceased, it's purely about pioneering advances in the field of visual effects. You lack vision Arpy. 

 

 

Creative means? I dunno, this deepfake tech seems pretty darn creative to me. And arguably, it yields far superior results to what has been achieved with "traditional" special effects. What is your arbitrary criteria by which you measure creativity anyway?

I'm not disputing the potential of the technology. I think it's great that something like this is possible, but even now it's unrefined and stands out. I think we're still a few years out from achieving perfect photorealism with this.

 

I admire creativity by means of solving problems with practical effects and using CG where appropriate, as opposed to the smattering of Hollywood blockbusters that have produced films in the last twenty years smothered in CGI that will be dated in only a few years. I was watching Aquaman the other day and couldn't believe how glossy and fake everything looked, even when filming something as simple as an exterior shot. 

Believe me, as someone who loves Tron Legacy, I love when CG is developed in such a way that it congeals with the aesthetic and art direction of a film, and I know how many hours are poured into producing CG imagery, models, textures, rigs and everything that artistry entails. It's just that it's fallen into a rut where the technology started off pioneering visual design and then was quickly exploited by studios as a means of working around costly set production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Arpy said:

I'm not disputing the potential of the technology. I think it's great that something like this is possible, but even now it's unrefined and stands out. 

 

 

I can't figure why some people keep assuming the amateur mock-ups of YouTube hobbyists would be identical to similar efforts by huge multimillion dollar digital effects outfits such as ILM and WETA 🤷‍♂️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what I like about the YouTube Deepfake is how it captures and fixes the saggy De Niro eyelids which makes him look considerably younger. When I saw The Irishman, I thought the technology they used looked like the mo-cap work on something from Naughty Dog's Uncharted or more recently, The Last of Us Part 2. It was a major put-off.

 

I have to say some of Weta Digital's work has been disappointing, especially on the MCU films. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the Hollywood one look so shit but the DeepFake one look so good? Are digital production houses trying to justify their existence by making it more complicated? Are they a bunch of luddites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with everything, it's not about the 30- and 40- somethings getting used to it, it's about the next generation growing up with it and accepting it as normality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That as well, yes. 

 

50yr old moaners: Oooh oooh, but it's a different approach and I suddenly don't like knowing how a seamless special effect was achieved, because years ago I saw the tech experimented with by YouTubers, it feels soooo lazy. 

 

Young baggageless cinemagoers: whoa that looks real as fuck compared to that fake old Irishman CGI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of YouTubers... When did the trend start of every half witted YouTuber setting up a Patreon? "Hey fam, I have 51 subscribers watching my ugly face react to YouTube videos better than mine, be sure to subscribe and check out my Patreon, it would really help me out!" 

 

Setting up a YouTube Patreon must be barely one step up from outright asking people for money on the streets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gkgyver said:

Speaking of YouTubers... When did the trend start of every half witted YouTuber setting up a Patreon? "Hey fam, I have 51 subscribers watching my ugly face react to YouTube videos better than mine, be sure to subscribe and check out my Patreon, it would really help me out!" 

 

Setting up a YouTube Patreon must be barely one step up from outright asking people for money on the streets. 

Since the two adpocalypses, most YouTubers' income was cut to basically nothing. If you didn't have millions of subscribers you were ruined by this heartless stab to the gut.

I support a channel of a decent following through patreon as it's the only way they can continue to produce content and make a living, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but the adpocalypses are about companies pulling out of having ads on the platform at all, or are paying much less for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arpy said:

Since the two adpocalypses, most YouTubers' income was cut to basically nothing. If you didn't have millions of subscribers you were ruined by this heartless stab to the gut.

I support a channel of a decent following through patreon as it's the only way they can continue to produce content and make a living, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with already existing channels setting up a Patreon to compensate the reduced income. But I frequently come across new channels, by people who do have regular jobs, who offer very little, and ask for money right from the get go. 

You usually get money when you put hard effort into something and are passionate about something. And if you want to be a "professional" YouTuber, you need lots of effort, an upload schedule, a true passion, etc. 

The current crop of channels is "I heard you can get money from YouTube. Gimme some!" 

And then there are channels where I ask myself "what do you need the money for?" 

If you have an elaborate channel, like an exploration channel, and you need to travel, need equipment, need hotels etc, or if you have a recipe channel and you need food, certain cooking equipment, lighting stuff, or if you need to employ a cameraman, okay, you need money. 

But if you are a couple who lives in a nice apartment, and all you do is take smartphone videos of your cat meowing, and don't give a shit about light, editing, or sound, and can barely come up with a channel logo, what the fuck do you need donations for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gkgyver Yeah, it might seem disingenuous for those types of channels to ask for it, but if they have an audience no matter how small, I think they're going to try and shill. So be it, there's grifters on every platform trying to make a living!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I saw it in the cinema and had a good time, I enjoyed it. I think I watched it a second time a couple of months later and still thought it was decent. I don't consider it a movie to proactively hate, like some do (for some reason). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I don't care what anyone says; I still absolutely love TRON LEGACY.

 

I only saw it once. I remember enjoying it well enough, though the deaged Jeff Bridges did stand out in a bad way.

 

I revisit Daft Punk's score pretty often, though, and I never regret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's at it again:

 

 

 

Mixed results (and some plain bad ones) in this latest hobbiest attempt. But in the shots where it does look good, I think it unquestionably looks more like Peter Cushing than the CG "original" does. 

 

Much of the time, I think the problem lies more in the extremely unnatural physical performance, less with the face itself. Plus our brains know full well that PC doesn't sound like that when he speaks. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Quintus said:

He's at it again:

 

 

 

Mixed results (and some plain bad ones) in this latest hobbiest attempt. But in the shots where it does look good, I think it unquestionably looks more like Peter Cushing than the CG "original" does. 

 

Much of the time, I think the problem lies more in the extremely unnatural physical performance, less with the face itself. Plus our brains know full well that PC doesn't sound like that when he speaks. 

 

 

Part of it seems to be that the original has too much facial texture and the deep fake doesn't have quite enough, but the contrast makes them both look wrong somehow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.