You may fire when ready

You may fire when ready

Literally killed every scene it was in for me. I just ended up staring at the CGI and found it impossible to pay attention to what was going on.

It would look fine if it weren't for the dead, shiny eyes. Look for yourself, cover the eyes with your finger and the render is pretty much photorealistic this way.

If they already have an actor playing the role, maybe they should try compositing his real eyes into the 3D model instead of replacing them with dead fakes? Would that be possible?

xbox or playstation?

Which Marvel movie is this?

It's the skin that doesn't look right to me.

Pretty much unavoidable, since the dead guy they were recreating was never photographed in the era of HD digital cameras. They're basically having to make up all the details, which never works out quite right.

>i'm an autist feel sorry for me
kys faggot

Is it just me or did dark vader costume look like shit? Something was off ...

He was shot on film throughout most of his life. Film has a resolution greater than any consumer-grade display.

For me it was the red eye pieces.

The resolution of film is high in terms of being able to scale up an image without pixelation, but the detail level it captures is low. Fine details blur and you've got film grain, making it pretty much useless for creating a texture for a 3d model.

(you)

The neck piece of the helmet/mask looked much more prominent than in the original movies.

I doubt they actually screwed up the prop itself, since they obviously could just base it off the original versions, but I feel like the actor in the costume had a different posture, tilting his head up/back a little more in a way that made it look bad.

I think they did a pretty good job considering all the improvements made to photo-realistic ocean capture / face reconstruction since Tron 2 and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. certainly a lot better than that Paul Walker's CGI stand in in Fast & Furious 7.

Leia looked so much better

For me the animation just didn't capture the physical acting. Something a little off about it

Is it just me, or did they make the fake Tarkin look older than he was in Episode IV?

I don't get why they'd give him those deeper wrinkles around the eyes and mouth when Rogue One is set at basically the same time as the original movie.

Ok.

Smooth, youthful faces under soft lighting are easier to get right in CGI than gaunt old faces in harsh lighting.

If she didn't speak it would be alright, imo. When she says hope it looks so fucked.

...

Didn't mean to trigger you

You may kill yourself when ready

>Fine details blur and you've got film grain
Which looks better than the hyper-detailed glossy look of digital.

Fuck Hollywood for abandoning film.

Because a face plastered with make up is easier to do. Also the lightning in that scene made it easier.

On the other hand you had an old dude in changing lightning conditions arguing with a non cgi guy. They really failed at the lightning part. Tech not there yet.

The whole thing looks a little too shiny and way over saturated. Is that what it looks like in the movie?

why couldn't they just get actors that looked like them

That pic from the trailer isn't what he looks like in the movie

>in 5 years time we are gonna have movies with CGI dead actors

fuck you disney....

Just watched this today. Don't get all those grumbling about unrealistic Leia - she was done perfectly.
Tarkin was "almost" perfect, which is uncanny.

Why does his head have so much field of depth? His face is in focus and his hair and ears look like they're 6 feet in the distance

For me, it was those weird moves with his body when he changed position. Fucking scary

idk man Gloves feel off and yes something with the neck/mask was off.... I didn't feel the bad ass evil sith feels. I though Darth vader looked like a short cuck ...

Maybe it was the lighting that made Vader seem more weaker...

Can't they just use the eyes of real actors in the CGI models?

Reminder that it's less about the technology and more about perfecting the necromancy.

They royally fucked up. Not only are the proportions of his face wrong (take one transparent and overlay it next to the other and you'll see)
but they fucked up the light and texture. JFC

I was amazed when I saw that, but who knows if they used double as much time working on leias model, than working on all the scenes tarkin appeared

The movement is horrible though.

I would have like it better if we never saw Leia's face. The scene could have the entire conversation with her back facing the audience and the audience would have known just by her clothing and being addressed by title alone who she was.

Aren't autists the ones who have a hard time distinguishing things like facial expressions? If anything if you didn't find this CGI abomination distracting you're the autist.

100% although I think there's the possibility that older normies don't have as much of a problem with this as people who keep up with current graphic effects in cinema, television, and the video games

Why does every star wars film feel exactly the same. They all have the same plot about destroying something.

no her mouth looked all weird and off
its also just slightly abit too low

>immortal Clint Eastwood films dirty hairy 24

>hairy is now a old desktop put in some menial position as payback for what he does, costing the city money working on filing cold cases. Watching his city become the techno future center,and then into a homosexual den.
until he comes across a suspicious case.

>disney is gonna make cryogenic freezing real and use it on dying actors so they can be thawed when needed for a new film then frozen again

>Hire an actor to do all those lines and model the character, only to hire animators to CGI his face to resemble the dead actor they wanted to replace.
Wouldn't it just be more cheaper for Disney to find an actor that resembled Cushing instead of hiring animators to edit entire scenes?

5 had a unique plot among the OT. And whether people like them or not, PT had individual and unique stories per each instalment.

This feeling of repetitiveness is coming from the cramming of The Farce Engorges and Rogue Wan down our throats, along with Rebels to fuck is in the ass.

We're getting pretty close to reviving dead actors.

What a time to live in

that would create some interesting legal issues

I presume carrie fisher's and peter cushing's surviving family have had to consent to the image of their dead relative reappearing in this movie right?

>I presume carrie fisher's and peter cushing's surviving family have had to consent to the image of their dead relative reappearing in this movie right?
Of course, Cushing's family was all in, and Fisher was still alive when the movie came out.

>MUH BLURRY SANDPAPER MOVIES ARE DYING
Please shut up and accept that the future of movies is crystal clear and smooth

kys nostalgiafag

the skin is too shiny, like he has vaseline smeared over his face

Looked like shit in A New Hope aswell, almost like it was thrown together by a 70s propmaster....

To be honest he looked fine, although I'm not as familiar with his face (even though it's iconic), than I was with Fisher's in ANH. Her CGI face looked absolutely nothing like she did in the original.

The biggest thing that ruins these scenes is the lipsyncing, it's still absolutely dogshit.

To be honest, not memeing here, this is the best real-time computer generated face I have ever seen on film that was a hair away from looking exactly human. I can tell you what actually bugs people who may not be able to quite articulate why (as I know a lite bit about this); the facial motion tracking. They do that rookie mistake where they made it too meticulous so it appears artificial.

Want a comparison? Put this side by side to the second daylight scene with Gollum in Two Towers, much better tracking and that was a decade ago.

All things considered though, this is the best fully realized and completely digitial face I have ever seen. But when he moves...

I think the hair is the most distinguishing difference, it just looks blurry and like something that's added after.

The problem with the eyes is that, at least the way I see it, the width between them. It looks like they didn't quite get the proportions right.

Glad that you are here to fix the vfx industry champ!

They look extremely similar...

*little

You're being hyper-critical.

I think it looks good albeit slightly unnatural. What other alternatives do they have?

I actually think it is exciting. George Lucas's autistic as fuck dream of entire films realized in believable CG was dumb 20 years ago but a real reality now. It could pave the wave for some really creative films done with half the budget of a blockbuster and no actual actors.

Question: Should big name film actors have regular facial scans so that in the future when they die they can be bought back to life? They already have an algorithm that allows them to recreate any actors voice in a realistic manner from voice analysis. Why would you not want your virtual self to continue being used and remembered after your death?

That young RDJ in Civil War was on the same level.

Not everyone is a whore like you.

its called the uncanny valley

I know what the uncanny valley is you dumb faggot, I didn't use that term because he doesn't look that janky.

>Too shiny
>Too pink
>They fucked up his nose and middle of his brow where it joins the nose.

I didn't think it looked bad but Tarkin didn't really need to be in this movie.

He didn't do all that much.

not unavoidable. just lowest-bidder farming out of CGI. any number of perfect skins are rendered on a daily basis. they simply failed to do him correctly. photorealistic human renders are possible. this was not accomplished here.

>people complaining but doesn't realize the actor is long dead and can't be brought back to life

they should've just gotten Skip Bayless

It would be great if the savings of digital were invested into improving the movies.

...

SKEEEEEEUP

unlikely.
rumor has it tarkin was the most expensive CGI character ever and he still looked weird.
the tech isn't there yet for fully believable CGI humans, but we're slowly getting there.

>they fucked up the light and texture.
no. they did what was within the realms of contemporary VFX.

your criticism hold no real value. you are basically saying "they fucked up the blue people in avatar, they don't look like they would in real life"

One guy I watched it with didn't even realise Tarkin was CGI. He'd never watched New Hope.

I maybe a pleb, but i didn't even realize it's CGI and for the rest of the movie i sat there thinking 'Wasn't that guy dead? Did they found his twin or something?'

He moved all wrong and looked super-shitty as a result.

why did darth vader sound like a morbidly obese 90-year-old black guy?

Other than the slightly elongated face and the strands of hair, i think it looked amazingly similar and realistic.

>mfw peter cushing loved working on star wars and loved star wars
>mfw he said his only regret is that he got cast as a villain that died in the first movie meaning he couldn't work on the others

Cushing was a hell of a guy.