[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
"no. It was probably the best CGI human creation we've seen so far"
Congratulations, you have low standards.[/QUOTE]
I'm interested in FX movies for years so U can show noow your high standards.
Where U've seen better, from A to Z, CGI creation of human?
I'm waiting.
Where U've seen better, from A to Z, CGI creation of human?
==================
The giant marlon brando in superman returns.
And This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4&feature=player_embedded
This Tupac is on par with that advert of Bob Monkhouse from 2007 where he talks about Dying of prostate cancer, it's not bad, but it won't hold up to looking real, its been done before, a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxOMX1jl1w
"I'm interested in FX movies for years"
Hahaha. Is this you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpoRri7Oee0
You don't seem to grasp that 'CG people' is an industry standard sort of effect, now. It's not special and hasn't been for a long time. This crappy Tupac isn't significantly better than where they were when they did Gollum ten years ago. It's reached a saturation point where any advance is going to be incremental at best.
No offense, but people like you were the ones who shat their pants over how amazing the Final Fantasy CG movie was. That was in 2001. I saw a bit of that a couple of months ago and it looked silly.
We're at a point where stuff like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZTN-jRRM30 and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IktyXplMTg4 and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wK1Ixr-UmM and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7RYCsE9KQ is not special. It's available to anyone with a big enough wallet.
The Tupac thing is not impressive. It was an expensive gimmick that any effects house could've pulled off. In fact, there's a lot of 'amateurs' who could've done the same job for less money (although it might've taken them longer).
And Tupac sucks anyway. Are we done here??
* Brandois just transparent head in crystals, made from "old footage"
manipulated with CGI. In "making of" he looks good but like animation.
* Emily is quite good but remember that they made her face from living, real person. Am I wrong?
* Bob is bad and probably from old footage) Take a look at James Dean commercial or Steve McQueen. It looks way better.
I thought of comapre that Pac with Button, Clu 2.0.
@ Zebonka12
First of all- I said "probably the best CGI creation of human". Why? Coz we had just a bootleg version, we can't see source video in HD etc.
2nd - Makers says that he made him CGI at all. Skin, moves, mimics. Everything. I can't remeber that someone made that kinda stuff before with this quality.
They made JUST PARTS of BODY (Tron, Button etc.)
And what about this game-animations? That looks sucks.
"The Tupac thing is not impressive."
Where do U have eyes? Look at his moves, look at his chain, look at his face. He doesn't look like animated crap from Final Fantasy. And Gollum is not human being. Now (10 years later) it looks like crap.
Haha. Thing is, it took a few years for Gollum to look dodgy. CG Tupac looked crap as soon as people had time to wipe the tears from their eyes and stop laughing.
* Brandois just transparent head in crystals, made from "old footage"
manipulated with CGI. In "making of" he looks good but like animation.
===============
His head was recreated with CG, wireframe skined with footage from "superman" looks better than tupac.
=======================
* Emily is quite good but remember that they made her face from living, real person. Am I wrong?
================
No idea, still looks better than tupac.
========
* Bob is bad and probably from old footage Take a look at James Dean commercial or Steve McQueen. It looks way better.
===========
Fully CGi, with most of the audio from a radio interview before his death and as bad as tupac sliding around the stage after being projected onto a Perspex screen.
The Tupac is old footage of him with new hand and mouth movements CGI'd on, it's not a full animation. you seem to think is fully rendered, it isn’t. Most of the time it's not even in sync and the image is distorted.
This isn't the first time this has been done, the CGI mouth movements or the pepper's ghost projection.
How come U can say that 2pac looks bad if U can't watch HD "source" material?
Fairytale...
U saw just poor bootlegs but say - it looks like shit.
"The Tupac is old footage of him with new hand and mouth movements CGI'd on...,"
Any proves? Makers says that he's 100% CGI. No old footage.
How come U can say that 2pac looks bad if U can't watch HD "source" material?
==============
You don't know what i have seen and what i haven't do you, I could have been there couldn't i?
Yes i've seen proper footage not bootleg footage from youtube. HE slides around the stage, no amount of HD footage will stop him sliding around the stage or make him look better in comparison to the real perosn next to him.
================
ny proves? Makers says that he's 100% CGI. No old footage.
==================
Your english isn't very good so i assume you have miss understood the line "'This is not found footage. This is an illusion. This is just the beginning. Dre has a massive vision for this."
Which means it's not Footage on a screen. It’s projected onto Perspex.
There is an article in new scientist which explain things:
”The virtual Tupac was put together by video technology firm AV Concepts with the help of James Cameron’s visual effects company, Digital Domain, using a mix of previously recorded live footage and CGI. The hologram effect was created using a system developed by London-based Musion, which uses an advanced version of a 19th century magic trick called Pepper’s ghost to make virtual images appear live on stage.”
Understand that?
"using a mix of previously recorded live footage and CGI."
This is what the makers say.
Please stop assuming Things and try to understand that some people might know things you do not.
http://www.billboard.com/news/freddie-mercury-hologram-queen-shrugs-1006919952.story#/news/freddie-mercury-hologram-queen-shrugs-1006919952.story
luckily roger has dismissed the idea
luckily roger has dismissed the idea
============
But has brian?
Why don't they think of a 3-D movie of their 1986 wembley gig ?
==============
You don't know what i have seen and what i haven't do you, I could have been there couldn't i?
Yes i've seen proper footage not bootleg footage from youtube.
================
So? Where do U saw this? This is another argument like-I saw this in mf best quality and it still looks bad but won't tell U where I saw this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE slides around the stage, no amount of HD footage will stop him sliding around the stage or make him look better in comparison to the real perosn next to him.
----------------------------------------------------------
What sliding has to skin look, movements or mimic? He was sliding probably coz it was poor projection. Are U sure that he's sliding on source material?
HD material wont make him look better? So what's the point of realisng HD movies? When it dont looks better in HD? SD, HD doesnt matter. It just marketing trap.
Nice joke. Really.
They made him in HD and display in "pepper ghost" mode but you exactly know that the source material displayed in HD on big screen wont be looks better.
==================
Your english isn't very good so i assume you have miss understood the line "'This is not found footage. This is an illusion. This is just the beginning. Dre has a massive vision for this."
Which means it's not Footage on a screen. It’s projected onto Perspex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that I'm not good in "writing" doesnt mean that I can't understand.
U like manipulate, don't U?
I was talking about "source video material", not method of display. They must made video material first and later project it on screen and reflect on mylar. Are sure that I'm just one person who don't understand what read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an article in new scientist which explain things:
”The virtual Tupac was put together by video technology firm AV Concepts with the help of James Cameron’s visual effects company, Digital Domain, using a mix of previously recorded live footage and CGI. The hologram effect was created using a system developed by London-based Musion, which uses an advanced version of a 19th century magic trick called Pepper’s ghost to make virtual images appear live on stage.”
Understand that?
"using a mix of previously recorded live footage and CGI."
This is what the makers say.
Please stop assuming Things and try to understand that some people might know things you do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey genius. Look what I read before and what makers says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ulbrich also stated the performances of Tupac's hits "Hail Mary" and "2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted" were not old performances recycled. [b]"This is not found footage. This is not archival footage. [/b]This is an illusion." "
http://www.loudmusic247.com/articles-id.267-dre-and-snoop-considering-touring-with-the-tupac-hologram
"
If that makes the creation of a holographic Shakur seem easy, it's not -- especially because [b]the virtual Shakur's performance was not based on archival footage.[/b]"
[b]"This is not him performing at some point, this is completely original, exclusive performance[/b] only for Coachella and that audience," Ed Ulbrich, chief creative officer at Digital Domain told Bloomberg.
And because Shakur was a real person with a devoted fan following, it was crucial to get all his mannerisms, the tone of his voice, the placement of his tattoos, etc., correct.
The company [b]created the virtual Tupac from video footage and photos of the rapper,[/b] working on the project for about four months.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tupac-hologram-at-coachella-tour-20120417,0,5678362.story
Digital Doman is the company that made the hologram happen, and their Chief Creative Officer, Ed Ulbrich, stated, “This is not found footage. This is not archival footage. This is an illusion.” [b]This means that a 2Pac tour wouldn’t be recycled footage from old Pac shows, but all new creations [/b]of the deceased rapper’s look-alike “performing.”
http://pigeonsandplanes.com/2012/04/dr-dre-and-snoop-dogg-considering-a-tour-with-2pacs-hologram.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So where's the truth?
shamar, i have explained to you that it is a "new performance" but sourced from old footage with new mouth and arm movements. Making a new performance. It's not 100% CGI, and they have never said that it is, the only person saying this is you. The things you have linked to also confirm this:
===================
The company created the virtual Tupac from video footage and photos of the rapper
"This is not found footage. This is not archival footage. This is an illusion.
his is not him performing at some point, this is completely original, exclusive performance
==============
You yourself quoted this above!!
i have no idea what you are going on and on about "HD".
I have also told you where i saw the footage and know how this was done, the massive artical in new scientist, Showing how it was done.
You have misunderstood, which is fine, You obviously are having trouble understanding so i will just leave things here.
You obviously are having trouble understanding so i will just leave things here.
-------------------------------------------------
Think for f...in one second. I'm not english language speaking guy. I can "not understand" things written in english.
But I can write U some words in my root language. Do U think U understand anything?
