>there are people who will unironically defend this

>>81901835
It's not bad CGI, it's just hitting that uncanny valley something fierce. I don't think we're getting out of there anytime soon.
The first pic looks awful, anyway.

File: junkpuyo thatasstoofat.gif (502KB, 406x449px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 406x449px

>>81901835

>CGI from almost 20 years ago looks bad

Who da thunk it.

has no one on this board seen The Congress?

>>81901835
i actually thought tarkin was less freakish than leia

>>81902006
Interesting, i thought Leia looked much better than Tarkin. Her smile could have looked better tho

>>81902006
The thing is they both looked fine. They look fine in stills. The animations are still stuck in a Pixar movie and they move almost over-natural if that makes sense. Like if the animations in the face were a bit flawed I feel like it would look more natural. They just looked like upgraded graphics from the Rebels cartoon.

Also what's that first image from?

>>81901939
>i-it's just le uncanny valley meme, I promise. Also the first picture is a fucking alien. The point though is that they did a better job of skin texturing in 2002 than in 2016
>>81901976
Le ebin trollbing

>>81902122
>>i-it's just le uncanny valley meme, I promise
What are you even on about? It's high poly as fuck and the model is generally well made. It's just weird looking because they haven't managed to imitate the human face and its muscles yet. You sound both like you're mildly retarded and like you have an agenda.

File: dicks.jpg (212KB, 1190x636px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1190x636px

>>81901835
No idea why are people giving this so much shit.
It didn't look at all bad in theaters. Of course I knew it was CG but it wasn't distracting or anything like that. I'm sure it looks somewhat better on a proper bluray compared to these rips.

And what's with this fucking uncanny valley meme? The uncanny valley is when something looks so disturbingly realistic that it freaks you out because a part of you knows it isn't real. It has nothing to do with less than perfect or unrealistic CGI.

>>81902157
>it's a high polygon rendering so it must be good!
The problem is that they're completely incapable of giving face mass and all the characteristics that makes a face a face.

>>81902191
she looks like a fuckin ayy lmao

>>81902191
Oh yeah, the floaty massless and depthless face sure wasn't distracting. Let alone the horrendous mouth animations. Yes, it was distracting unless you're either over the age of 40 or quite literally have autistic facial blindness.

>>81902191
>The uncanny valley is when something looks so disturbingly realistic that it freaks you out
No it isn't.

>>81902269
>>it's a high polygon rendering so it must be good!
Cool straw man brah. I guess it's mildly retarded, after all.

>>81901939
>it's not bad cgi. it's just bad cgi.

What did he mean by this?

>>81901990
None of you?

File: princess aayyyy.png (548KB, 1187x634px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1187x634px

>>81902307
>hallo fellow hu-hu-mangzzzz!

>>81902269
Actually you can simulate how the muscles look and act to give any musculature on a digital model 'weight' however this is reliant on animation quality and doing natural imperfections. Something that alot of studios seem to forget for some reason.

>>81902309
Like I said It wasn't distracting at all when I saw it in theaters. You're obviously talking out of your ass because you didn't watch the damn flick.

>>81902324
That's literally what the definition is:
>used in reference to the phenomenon whereby a computer-generated figure or humanoid robot bearing a near-identical resemblance to a human being arouses a sense of unease or revulsion in the person viewing it.

>>81902349
That's literally what your argument wast, that and that it's "generally well made". You're pathetic.

>>81902434
Oh I know that it CAN be done, I'm saying that for reasons that are mostly money and culture driven, they don't.

>>81902437
Yeah, it might not have been distracting for you, thus my other points. Also
>shitty tripfag
>using personal anecdote
>using the word "flick"
kys

File: 1898907-young-happy-man-smiling-isolated-on-white-background.jpg (57KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 533x800px

>>81902191
People in the theater fucking laughed.
It looked like utter shit

>>81902561
Well my point is that you likely didn't even see the film in theaters, or on the bluray, as I would imagine those who dedicated their time to make this shit would have wanted. You're entire frame of reference in this discussion is based on shitty stills from shitty rips and you still have the nerve to tell me it's a problem on my end. It's REALLY not as bad as people make it out to be.

>>81902671
I actually did see it in theaters, first week it was out. The whole movie was mediocre but the CGI Leia and Tarkin made me sneer. Leia popped up I heard a few gasps and one guy literally groaned.

>>81902309
Well this is what they're banking on, that most Star Wars fans do have autistic facial blindness.

>>81902671
>likely

This is pathetic, you've been repeatedly told, the anon did see it in the theater.

>You're

Fucking hell, you're impaired, that explains it.

>>81902582
That's actually pretty funny. People were cheering when Leia showed up, much like whenever something remotely related to the original trilogy popped up.

>>81902741
The CGI Tarkin was much better than Leia, but not surprising because the character had more screen time too. I honestly don't know how you kids can sit there and go on about the graphics of your shitty mass effect and call of duty games and then shit on the best renditions of human faces that cinema has produced thus far. There is literally no equal.

>>81902825
This has nothing to do with face blindness. If anything the people who don't recognize these characters for who they are supposed to be have face blindness, but that has nothing to do with the thread at hand.

>>81902929
>how you kids
Confirmed for either baiting or over 40. Obviously you fall under the "old fuck" category that I already outlined.

>>81902929
No, everyone recognized who it was supposed to be, the problem is that it looks like a dodgy CGI version because that's what it is.

Recasting would have been preferable. Dire stuff.

>>81902858
I made a grammatical error, sue me. But you apparently can't fucking read. Not a single time did that guy explicitly state he saw the film in theaters, and only did after I forced it out of him. But even then it's not like people like on the internet, right :^)

>>81902959
I'm not even that old. Genuinely curious though. You guys go on about how great the graphics are in those games you play, but something like this presents itself and it's automatically shit even though it's magnitudes better than anything we've seen before.

>>81902979
That's why it has nothing to do with face blindness. And just as an interesting tidbit they did cast actors to play Tarkin and Leia, they just changed their faces with CG to look more like the characters they were portraying.

>>81903107
>But even then it's not like people like on the internet
*lie

Woops had to correct that post post haste, or else it would upset the kids

>>81903107
You realizing comparing pre-rendered images to video game graphics are two different things, right? Also I not once brought that shit up. The saddest thing about this whole deal is that Terminator Genysis's shitty CGI arnold was almost as good (at least in the face) as this shit.
https://youtu.be/SW8KIuMV0s4

What's the point of this thread? what does Stephen Merchant have to do with Star Wars?

>>81901990
I've seen it. Thought about it alot when the R1 cgi controversy started

>>81903236
>You realizing comparing pre-rendered images to video game graphics are two different things, right?
You're right that is absolutely true. But i'm talking about the cut-scenes that are also prerendered in games.

>https://youtu.be/SW8KIuMV0s4
You know, people also laughed at that shit at the time of its release. It doesn't look bad either though. But you can definitely see the illusion break when he starts running and flailing his arms around. With Rogue One there weren't any heavy movements.

>>81903361
>You're right that is absolutely true. But i'm talking about the cut-scenes that are also prerendered in games.
Okay? Still not even something I mentioned until you brought it up twice.
>You know, people also laughed at that shit at the time of its release. It doesn't look bad either though. But you can definitely see the illusion break when he starts running and flailing his arms around. With Rogue One there weren't any heavy movements.
We're just talking about the face you stupid faggot. Obviously when he's moving around a lot it shit but that's action and fight scenes in general now a days anyway, it just stands out worse with CGI

>>81902352
>comparing a high quality pic from a movie from 2002 with some potato quality cgi filmed from a cam

What did he mean by this?

>>81901835
they both look good to me

Why didn't they just hire another actor that look like her? It worked well in Trainspotting 2 I couldn't even tell which one is newly shot

>>81903504

Tarkin is absolutely irremplaceable

Leia could have been no cgi though

>>81903107
They replaced their faces with CGI bullshit. They look baaaaad. Admit it to yourself.

>>81903531
Hiddleston could have done Tarkin, he looks like a younger Cushing.

Imagine what The Godfather Part Two would have been like if the young Vito had been represented by some bullshit digital mush of Brando's old footage? This kind of thing is far more interesting done by an actor than with this kind of approach. Also far less embarrassing.

>>81903564

My mom didn't even realized that Tarkin was CGI even if she saw a new hope like in the 90s

>>81903418
>Okay? Still not even something I mentioned until you brought it up twice.
What? Why bring that even up. I was merely wondering how can people, kids actually, defend the CGI in games, when it is so much worse than that of the multi-million dollar films of today. That was my point originally, you can even go back and read it. Don't need to get your panties in a twist.

>>81903418
And this goes back to the same point. You, assuming you are the same poster, brought up that as an example of amazing CGI. And I will tell you, again, it's good, but when his lips start to move it really is no different to the shit we've sen in Rogue One. It's not bad. It's actually pretty good all things considered. I don't understand why you've gone on this crusade posting arnie CGI when this is exactly the kind of shit I was talking about an hour ago.

>>81903608
Yeah, people over 40 are far enough behind in their minds of what looks "real" regarding effects that of course they won't notice.

>>81903709
I didn't say it was amazing you cock gobbling faggot, I said that it was comparable, ie they're both mediocre at best if not shit.

>>81903787
And there you go again. It's not shit. Show me a video game with as good, that's "pre-rendered" for you I guess, CGI. This kind of shit is state of the art. You just sound like a total asshole for saying it looks like absolute shit. Nobody expects you to think it's real, relax. So why all the hostility?

>CGI arnold was almost as good (at least in the face) as this shit
>almost as good
>almost

almost
ˈɔːlməʊst/Submit
adverb
not quite; very nearly.
"he almost knocked Georgina over"
synonyms: nearly, just about, about, more or less, practically, virtually, all but, as good as, next to, close to, near, nigh on, not far from, not far off, to all intents and purposes, approaching, bordering on, verging on, nearing; More

>>81903931
Holy shit, just fuck off and admit you're wrong and grasping for straws you sad sack of dicks.

File: princess-leia-stormtroopers-high-definition-star-wars.jpg (140KB, 1600x683px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x683px

It was fine.

It was a fun scene, I particularly liked the marine tripping up over the doorway getting onto the Blockade Runner given all the trouble the Stormtroopers end up having with it.

Carrie Fischer didn't always look very realistic either, its was the coke I think. In ANH, Princess Leia mostly acts with her bottom lip and clearly looks uncomfortable because as George Lucas famously said "there are are no bras in space". Its not quite on a Kubrick/Shelley Duvall or a Hitchcock/Tippi Hedren tier though.

>>81902084
>Also what's that first image from?

Men in Black? I think.

>>81903608
She isn't paying attention when she watches your autistic media, junior, she just watches it out of pity for your tragic, aging manchild ass. There is no such film as A New Hope, stop being autistic.

>>81904036
Lol. I'm wrong about what exactly? You seem to think this whole thing is some dick measuring contest where one faggot fucks the other in the ass and wins.

I was merely pointing out that the CGI in Rogue One wasn't as bad as people would like you to think it is.

Then I merely asked that guy (i'm guessing it is not you at this point) about the CGI in games and what makes that so special. And then here you are with all this fucking attitude. If a medal is what you want for shitting on state of the art CGI then I'm sorry to disappoint you, they don't give those out.

File: 1487617562717.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>>81903319
kek I'm amazed it took this long

>>81904478
Dude, anyone not autistic can see it was terrible. It bears no resemblance to the people it's supposed to portray.

>>81901835
Steve it could be your brother.

>>81904528
It was okay. You're exaggerating.

This >>81902429 is more comfortable to look at than this >>81902191

>>81901835
Big eyes and it was gangley

>>81902084
Men in Black II

Also there's an adage in the effects business. It's easier to make something look fantastic than it is to make it look real.

File: 8194804-3x2-940x627.jpg (62KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 940x627px

so this...is the power...of CGI...

she looks like a fat, coal-burning whore

all tolls will be paid

>>81904814
It bugs me even more that not only could they not get the hair right but that they got the shape and proportions of the head and skull wrong

The other cg character in Rogue One is much worse.

>>81904814
Just got around to watching Rogue One, was aware there would be some silly facial mimicry but did not expect literally Xbox 360-level faces like the one here. Did people actually applaud this implementation of the technology?

>>81904814

literally which one is fake?

>>81904544
>Oh yeah, he's right. I could be an alien.

>>81904910
It's identical you blind idiot. The difference is lighting.

70's films were big on hard lightning

>>81904236
really did you have "fun" watching that scene?

were you sitting there thinking this scene sure is bringing the "fun".

do you look back on it and think those few minutes sure were "fun"

>It was a fun scene

Fucking yuck

>>81905322
Are you just pretending to be stupid?

>>81905929
>cant tell the difference between lighting
Are you?

>>81901835
These aren't the same. Steve Buscemi was still alive when they his CGI version in top pic so that had a better reference.

File: Jones.jpg (48KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x375px

>StarWars/Disney in 2016 can't beat Squidman from 2006

>>81904814
Didn't know this guy was dead or CGI when I watched the movie and seeing this they both look real to me.

>>81906539
the very major difference here is that we have no point of reference for a real life davey jones. we see human faces all day every day and are mentally wired to recognise them and the minute differences between them.
you can make a weird funky fish man all you want and nobody can say you're wrong, but your subconscious is shrieking for more coke on computer-leia and especially computer-tarkin.

>>81906691
>he doesn't see tentacle faced men every day
Fucking queer

>>81904814
looks like something from clone wars

>>81904910
The hair is right. When you're balding and combing it back like Cushing, it sometimes sticks up in places the way they simulated it.

>>81902191
>The uncanny valley is when something looks so disturbingly realistic that it freaks you out because a part of you knows it isn't real.
This is not what the uncanny valley means
It's more about the attempt of the imagery being realistic, while it clearly in the viewer's eyes is not, that it elicits revulsion. It's not the fact about being "disturbingly realistic" it's about being quite realistic but not realistic enough to pass as an actual person

>>81904814
Why does the CGI version actually look older?

>tfw soon we can produce all kinds of degenerate adult entertainment for our dick using realistic cgi replicas of who ever actress we want

>>81908090
This is the only worthwhile use of VR

>>81906539
>cgi looks worse than practical effects

>>81901835
>Comparing real life actor Steven Merchant to a cgi Carrie Fisher
For what purpose?

>>81902437
The key point is
>near identical
It doesn't disturb you because it's too realistic, it disturbs you because it's not realistic but you just can't quite put your finger on what makes it not realistic.

>>81908136
I imagine in the future celebs will be able to trademark their faces after some major lawsuit like that one surrounding ellen page's nude model buried in that one game she was in.

File: deckard.jpg (29KB, 660x274px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 660x274px

>tfw something unreal successfuly fools you into thinking it's real

Tarkin would have been helped by having him occasionally look away from the camera once he was fully revealed. It's unnatural for an actor to always be full or 3/4 facing the audience, but cg animation directors always have the attitude that they're paying good money for that face so they'd better use it. Leia was 99% fine.

>>81901939
You're a fucking retard.

>>81902191
>And what's with this fucking uncanny valley meme? The uncanny valley is when something looks so disturbingly realistic that it freaks you out because a part of you knows it isn't real. It has nothing to do with less than perfect or unrealistic CGI.

This. All these fucking redditors misusing this buzzword is so annoying.

>>81904814
Tarkin was horrific. At least they had the decency to only show Leia in a split second cameo. They kept parading this wax ghoul around the screen and even had the nerve to plonk it between actual actors as if it was blending in at all. Took me completely out of the film.

File: fig16-04.jpg (58KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 300x300px

>>81904814
The problem is that for some reason they used no or at least a weird version of sub surface scattering, which simulates light passing through meat.
CGI tarkin looks like he is made of clay because he lacks that.

>>81902191
It literally looks indistinguishable from her real face. If you showed this to someone who didn't know what it was from and told them it was real, they wouldn't blink at it.

>>81903319
weird innit

>>81901835
What is the pic up top, plex?

>>81902191
>Of course I knew it was CG but it wasn't distracting or anything like that.
It was VERY distracting. It looked so abnormal like someone spent too much time in photoshop

btw I am someone who loved Rogue One but this Leia CGI is awful. Tarkin wasn't too bad

>>81908657
This is one of those effects that a lot of 3D artists bypass because it tends to increase rendering time by a huge amount for very little visual effect.
Trouble is, it's one of those small things that makes a big difference to people's perception.

>>81902191

So are they going to do this again now that the coke whore's heart blew out?

File: TarkinRO.png (614KB, 1282x529px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1282x529px

>>81904814

File: TarkinRO.png (523KB, 1280x534px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1280x534px

He looks great in this pic

>>81909113
>>81909135
His face is just too crisp and clear compared to the rest of the scene.

File: leia.webm (1MB, 1280x536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x536px

>>81901835
>101 replies
>no webm

her mouth is just slightly too low

File: cry-engine-3-screen-2[1].jpg (177KB, 2428x1369px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 2428x1369px

>>81909113
>>81909135
Looks like a video game cut-scene.

>>81904814
He was CGI? I honestly did not know... Holy shit.

>>81909683
The fact that all of this occurred just hours before Ep4 is just too convenient. She gets the plans, goes on the run and is almost immediately captured?
You'd have thought that Disney would've wanted a little bit of space between them so they could jam in some tie-in books/cartoons to fill out the weeks/months of Vader hunting down the plans.

>>81908657
>>81908847
>I know more than the professional technical artists that made it.

Also, there IS sub surface scattering, are you mad?

>>81909989
How do you know they don't? It's possible for people in the industry to post on this dump too.

>>81901835
You're using the same meme that /to/ used against the Hobbit, that's not the finished product.

However, hobbits CGI sucked ass but the Rouge One was great

>>81901835
Smoking is a filthy habit.

>>81909683
she looks apish because of that

>>81909135
its the reflections, theres way too much light reflecting off his head, especially compared to everything else in the scene

it makes him look like plastic

File: Young_Tarkin.jpg (53KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x500px

why couldn't they just use the actor from Revenge of the Sith?

>>81908217
This post again...

For the final time. Everything on Davy Jones is CGI, except the makeup on his eyes. The motion capture too if you want to count that.

>>81909135
>>81912071
It's the eyes, It's always they eyes. They look dead and lifeless. His mouth during speach doesn't move normally either, because it's a motion captured mouth on a fake head, our brains spot these things right away and know something is wrong.

>have you seen men in black 2, Steve? There's this.. thing in it

>>81901835
It honestly looks like a human face to me. Even in the movie I didn't see much wrong with it. Tarkin was a bit off, but whatever, the film is full of really obvious CGI.

>>81912198
because that looks like absolute horseshit

>>81912346
>lifeless eyes
Can someone explain this to me? What exactly do life-ful eyes look like? Why are people so bothered by this "uncanny valley"?

>>81902191
Why was it necessary to even show her face, showing her only from behind or even in the shadows would have a better effect

File: 1492477781606.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>81904814
>>81901835
>>81902191
>>81902429

Gonna put this out there. Tarkin looks more like a cartoon, thus he was both less off-putting to look at, but also more obviously out of place. Leia on the other hand looked more like an actual Human, so, the little things wrong looked even more off putting.

People saying Leia's CG looked bad are wrong. She is 'the' example of the uncanny valley. She looks so bad, not because they did a bad job, but because she is that point at which you see her in profile, and from certain angles, and she looks fine - but the second she animated, the illusion burns. It's uncanny. It's off putting. But not because they did a bad job. It's because as far as we've come, we're not quite there yet.

It's also why Tarkin's more cartoonish look was never as hard to watch, because the out of place motions and animations looked more natural on something already outlandish, cartoonish, looking.

>>81902084

Yeah Tarkin's face didn't move right at all. Like it was going to fall apart at any minute.

NO SMOKING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkmAp72DC3U

>>81909683
This actually would've been perfect if she just kept looking down the whole time. It looks perfect from the side and when she looks down.

File: 1456073498255.jpg (84KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 512x512px

>>81902122

>>81902191
>uncanny valley is when something looks too realistic

Here is the evidence of just how retarded the average /tv/ poster is. It's called the uncanny "VALLEY" because it's in the middle patch between ultra realistic and obviously fake. We accept things that are obviously fake and accept things that are ultra realistic but in that sweet spot in the middle our brains get freaked out because we can't work out what's happening.

>>81912432
Pupils change size.
There's depth in the iris, and the cornea.
Small microscopic barely noticable twitches.

Also Tarkin in Original didn't do many twitches, he was more "stiff", for some reason they made fake Tarking move his lips and face weirdly for no reason.

>>81912524
This is always going to be problem, at least for now. The texture and 'skin' are stretched across the models and are pinned to the vertices. So the skin goes and pulls where the model goes.
Trouble is real skin is flabby and meaty so when the bones move the skin doesn't necessarily follow them with one-to-one precision, this is really obvious in slight facial movements.
So although the models look great as stills, the movement is still far too precise, making the features look unnatural that no amount of blur effect can disguise.

>>81912957
>Small microscopic barely noticable twitches
Yep, microsaccades occur even if we are focusing on a single spot. Basically the eye is never at perfect rest

File: 1462243666734.png (32KB, 896x994px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 896x994px

top pic, what movie?