How 'Rogue One' Recreated Grand Moff Tarkin - Design FX
video description
Date: 2022-07-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
No
There are two huge problems with CGI humans.
Number one: Human skin is actually translucent. It is not opaque. It is also quite thick and layered. So, with CGI, the skin doesn't have this construction built into it. The skin is not translucent and does not have layers of discolorations, moles and scars built into it. That's because trying to accomplish that would be a nightmare to build, and a nightmare to render. The priority changes alone would bog the greatest render farm in the world to a halt.
Number two: Human facial muscles are far too numerous to recreate in a model. Even if you covered all of them in your animation, human muscles twitch and flex with far too many variations to cover in the facial movements. You ALWAYS notice this around the eyes. Eyes flicker and flutter almost imperceptibly when a person is talking or reacting. Animators just don't have that kind of time or even perception to build this in.
The funny thing is that most people will not really know what is wrong, or why the CGI character doesn't look quite real. They only perceive it. That's because we have spent all of our lives watching other people, and you can't fool us easily.
I'm a special effects artist for Film/TV and have worked for almost 30 years in the field. I can spot a CGI character in seconds. Thing is, though, so can someone who has no idea that someone like me even exists.
reply
There are two huge problems with CGI humans.
Number one: Human skin is actually translucent. It is not opaque. It is also quite thick and layered. So, with CGI, the skin doesn't have this construction built into it. The skin is not translucent and does not have layers of discolorations, moles and scars built into it. That's because trying to accomplish that would be a nightmare to build, and a nightmare to render. The priority changes alone would bog the greatest render farm in the world to a halt.
Number two: Human facial muscles are far too numerous to recreate in a model. Even if you covered all of them in your animation, human muscles twitch and flex with far too many variations to cover in the facial movements. You ALWAYS notice this around the eyes. Eyes flicker and flutter almost imperceptibly when a person is talking or reacting. Animators just don't have that kind of time or even perception to build this in.
The funny thing is that most people will not really know what is wrong, or why the CGI character doesn't look quite real. They only perceive it. That's because we have spent all of our lives watching other people, and you can't fool us easily.
I'm a special effects artist for Film/TV and have worked for almost 30 years in the field. I can spot a CGI character in seconds. Thing is, though, so can someone who has no idea that someone like me even exists.
reply
Nathan
It was a wonderful tribute to Peter Cushing to include him in the film. The likeness was incredible and I was not aware he was in the movie until I watched it at the cinema. I was blown away when he appeared larger than life on the screen. My only criticism is they could have made a far better job at getting his voice right.
reply
It was a wonderful tribute to Peter Cushing to include him in the film. The likeness was incredible and I was not aware he was in the movie until I watched it at the cinema. I was blown away when he appeared larger than life on the screen. My only criticism is they could have made a far better job at getting his voice right.
reply
Roman
I agree with those who say that the new actor could have made a nice Tarkin on his own, with only a little makeup magic. But I also think this whole enterprise was a sort of tribute, a love letter to Cushing, may he rest in peace. Besides, such undertakes are important so that the cinema technology could advance.
reply
I agree with those who say that the new actor could have made a nice Tarkin on his own, with only a little makeup magic. But I also think this whole enterprise was a sort of tribute, a love letter to Cushing, may he rest in peace. Besides, such undertakes are important so that the cinema technology could advance.
reply
Jimmy
I know this video is about Tarkin, but I just want to say that when I saw Leia at the end, my first thought was: -Wow! They found an actor who looks exactly the same! - I actually didn't realize until later that it was CGI.
It looked THAT real to me.
reply
I know this video is about Tarkin, but I just want to say that when I saw Leia at the end, my first thought was: -Wow! They found an actor who looks exactly the same! - I actually didn't realize until later that it was CGI.
It looked THAT real to me.
reply
Louis
It-s funny because when I saw the movie in theaters with my friends, I had no idea how they did it. I was thinking -Did they hire a member of his family? Did they use older footage? - But all of my friends were gamers so they recognized the CG instantly.
reply
It-s funny because when I saw the movie in theaters with my friends, I had no idea how they did it. I was thinking -Did they hire a member of his family? Did they use older footage? - But all of my friends were gamers so they recognized the CG instantly.
reply
Green
Well done CGI. yet still not good enough. You can see something is off, and in a few years, you'll look at it and think, what crap is this? Why can't we accept that actors are acting a role, rather than try to make them look like another with CGI?
reply
Well done CGI. yet still not good enough. You can see something is off, and in a few years, you'll look at it and think, what crap is this? Why can't we accept that actors are acting a role, rather than try to make them look like another with CGI?
reply
Mr
It wasn't as bad as people claim. It's a bit of a bandwagon thing I think. Average Pepe wouldn't notice it. You actually have to actively take yourself out of the movie and think -okay the actor is dead, let me look really closely to see the CGI-.
reply
It wasn't as bad as people claim. It's a bit of a bandwagon thing I think. Average Pepe wouldn't notice it. You actually have to actively take yourself out of the movie and think -okay the actor is dead, let me look really closely to see the CGI-.
reply
Pineapple
We are not yet at the point where human CGI is completely unnoticeable. But I don't think people appreciate how far we have come with CGI in a very short amount of time. None of this would have been possible a few decades ago.
reply
We are not yet at the point where human CGI is completely unnoticeable. But I don't think people appreciate how far we have come with CGI in a very short amount of time. None of this would have been possible a few decades ago.
reply
gerv55
The fact it's cg of a deceased actor always means it'll be under far more scrutiny. I found it looked realistic in some scenes and not so much in others, when his face was shadowed a bit it seemed more lifelike.
reply
The fact it's cg of a deceased actor always means it'll be under far more scrutiny. I found it looked realistic in some scenes and not so much in others, when his face was shadowed a bit it seemed more lifelike.
reply
Daniel
The only question that still stands: Are you allowed to use the Face of a dead Character in a movie? I mean the Ethnical side of that. If yes, you could add every Actor in your movie without even pay him.
reply
The only question that still stands: Are you allowed to use the Face of a dead Character in a movie? I mean the Ethnical side of that. If yes, you could add every Actor in your movie without even pay him.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
