Disney-s Maleficent: Re-creating Fully Digital Characters-Design FX
video description
Date: 2022-07-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
iLikeTheUDK
Sorry, but Mike Seymour or whoever wrote this for him has no idea what they're going on about. The mocap data _is_ retargeted to the model, it's just that each actor (generally speaking; this stuff has been going on for almost a decade by now) is captured several times at the light stage, with different expressions and facial movements after the initial, neutral pose capture, and so results in a more accurate representation of the actor than just capturing them in the neutral pose and then have animators and/or 3D artists re-pose the face for animation.
Image-based lighting is a tech completely different and irrelevant to this process - You know when you use HDR environment maps to light your scene? That's what it is. This, or the same with any other sort of HDR (or even non-HDR) footage. It predates the first light stage in many years, and was in fact already used in some way in movies like Flight of the Navigator, The Abyss and Terminator 2. The confusion was probably caused by the fact that the earliest tests made with the ICT's light stages involved relighting 2D capture data, by rapidly taking multiple photos of the subject inside the stage (be it an actor or anything else that could fit inside and stay still for the required time, which was a minute in the earliest functioning test stage, and a bit less than a second with the most recent stages) from the same point of view, but each lit by a different LED or group of LEDs, with each such photo targeted to a point in a virtual sphere, at which points there were virtual -lights- which would receive colour and intensity from either a HDR environment map, or a simulated light source in a 3D scene, with the former being the most common early on. Unless it was meant for testing of some kind, the traditional capture and relighting is redundant.
I also don't get the point of what he says about having a lot of test renders which are never seen in the final movie. How is that unique about this process? Back in the days of all-physical and optical effects you wouldn't just think of an idea of how to make some effect and shoot it without any screen tests whatsoever. It's not like you also show audition footage of the actors in the actual film, too.
reply
Sorry, but Mike Seymour or whoever wrote this for him has no idea what they're going on about. The mocap data _is_ retargeted to the model, it's just that each actor (generally speaking; this stuff has been going on for almost a decade by now) is captured several times at the light stage, with different expressions and facial movements after the initial, neutral pose capture, and so results in a more accurate representation of the actor than just capturing them in the neutral pose and then have animators and/or 3D artists re-pose the face for animation.
Image-based lighting is a tech completely different and irrelevant to this process - You know when you use HDR environment maps to light your scene? That's what it is. This, or the same with any other sort of HDR (or even non-HDR) footage. It predates the first light stage in many years, and was in fact already used in some way in movies like Flight of the Navigator, The Abyss and Terminator 2. The confusion was probably caused by the fact that the earliest tests made with the ICT's light stages involved relighting 2D capture data, by rapidly taking multiple photos of the subject inside the stage (be it an actor or anything else that could fit inside and stay still for the required time, which was a minute in the earliest functioning test stage, and a bit less than a second with the most recent stages) from the same point of view, but each lit by a different LED or group of LEDs, with each such photo targeted to a point in a virtual sphere, at which points there were virtual -lights- which would receive colour and intensity from either a HDR environment map, or a simulated light source in a 3D scene, with the former being the most common early on. Unless it was meant for testing of some kind, the traditional capture and relighting is redundant.
I also don't get the point of what he says about having a lot of test renders which are never seen in the final movie. How is that unique about this process? Back in the days of all-physical and optical effects you wouldn't just think of an idea of how to make some effect and shoot it without any screen tests whatsoever. It's not like you also show audition footage of the actors in the actual film, too.
reply
Deathvoltaje
This technology is not new, it's been in the industry at least 6 years, and there are better ways to do fatial motion capture without the need of too much points, Face Robot is one of them, the ambient light is done by HDRI, has been in the industry for years too, this is just a marketing video trying to woo the potential viewers making the film bigger than it truly is.
reply
This technology is not new, it's been in the industry at least 6 years, and there are better ways to do fatial motion capture without the need of too much points, Face Robot is one of them, the ambient light is done by HDRI, has been in the industry for years too, this is just a marketing video trying to woo the potential viewers making the film bigger than it truly is.
reply
Hugh
bragging about how real something looks when it in fact does not look remotely photorealistic to the live action stuff is what convinces me that these people are 100% delusional. The CGI is great and props to the artists who put in the hard work, but having some guy preach about how -real- it looks just makes my eyes roll.
reply
bragging about how real something looks when it in fact does not look remotely photorealistic to the live action stuff is what convinces me that these people are 100% delusional. The CGI is great and props to the artists who put in the hard work, but having some guy preach about how -real- it looks just makes my eyes roll.
reply
education
I feel like if you tell yourself it doesn-t look real it-s not going to. So when people say it doesn-t look real it-s kind of on them. If it was like in 2005 I can see that but it-s not. The cgi is good enough to appear realistic. It-s just all about how you interpret it and what you tell yourself.
reply
I feel like if you tell yourself it doesn-t look real it-s not going to. So when people say it doesn-t look real it-s kind of on them. If it was like in 2005 I can see that but it-s not. The cgi is good enough to appear realistic. It-s just all about how you interpret it and what you tell yourself.
reply
J. Y.
If you believe yourself, you can make such job in open source software, anole. without extra exancive stuff. (But You must be CRAZY like Jorge Lucas)
reply
If you believe yourself, you can make such job in open source software, anole. without extra exancive stuff. (But You must be CRAZY like Jorge Lucas)
reply
yrussq
Finally the lighting made some step further. 99% of CGI graphics looks like CGI because of unmatched and unrealistic lighting.
reply
Finally the lighting made some step further. 99% of CGI graphics looks like CGI because of unmatched and unrealistic lighting.
reply
Fr0z0rz
This is really awesome. It's amazing to see how far we've come with technology. Looking forward to watching this movie. :)
reply
This is really awesome. It's amazing to see how far we've come with technology. Looking forward to watching this movie. :)
reply
The
I thought it was real cool how the fairies were actually real women and not fake animated cartoon fairies! Real creative
reply
I thought it was real cool how the fairies were actually real women and not fake animated cartoon fairies! Real creative
reply
Jason
Videos like this make me see just how much of a jerk Andy Serkis is to the people in his animating team.
reply
Videos like this make me see just how much of a jerk Andy Serkis is to the people in his animating team.
reply
PT111111
I just hope they don't go bankrupt like Rythm n Hues did after receiving the Oscar for Life of Pi VFX.
reply
I just hope they don't go bankrupt like Rythm n Hues did after receiving the Oscar for Life of Pi VFX.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
