On 06/04/2011 02:49 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
>>> Pixar and Disney will remain down the cartoon look, that is, cartoonish
>>> models with cartoony proportions filled with realistic materials and
>>> lights and *hand animated* for better performance than any one actor.
>>
>> 1. Pixar *is* Disney.
>
> It's not.

Disney bought Pixar a while back.

>> 2. I see motion capture as the future.
>


I don't think that cartoons are going away anytime soon. But I think the 
future of trying to look real is in motion capture.

>> It gives you far more expression with far less work.
>
> It gives you far *less* expression with less work.

If you animate by hand, then absolutely everything that happens must be 
animated by hand. The result is either extremely expensive or not very 
expressive. The human face, on the other hand, has evolved over billions 
of years and constantly transmits emotion, intentionally or not. And 
actors have spent centuries perfecting the art of emoting. These people 
know what they're doing.

Of course, if you want over the top cartoon whackyness, hand-drawn is 
the way to go, and I imagine there will always be a place for that. But 
if you want authentic, capture the real thing.


> Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves.  I was saying how they opted for fantasy
> characters to get out of the UV.

Probably. I mean, if you want truly real-looking characters, just film 
some. Much cheaper.

>>> http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?t=113952
>>
>> Doesn't look especially great to me, but maybe I'm analysing it too much.
>
> Aside from the hair -- can't blame a sculptor for not getting that quite right
> -- I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a real person.

Yeah, I think the hair gives it away.

Post a reply to this message