pavlovscat on 22/8/2008 at 15:50
The animation is impressive, but the one thing that distracted me (way more than her mouth) were her eyes. I can't pin it down, but her eyes just weren't 'right'. That really bothered me. Otherwise, very cool.
Stitch on 22/8/2008 at 16:02
kill it
dreamcatcher on 22/8/2008 at 16:08
don't
rachel on 22/8/2008 at 16:19
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
The animation is impressive, but the one thing that distracted me (way more than her mouth) were her eyes. I can't pin it down, but her eyes just weren't 'right'. That really bothered me. Otherwise, very cool.
For me it was the blinking. She blinked too much. Not enough to scream "FAKE!", but weird.
mol on 22/8/2008 at 16:32
She blinked, because the actress whose expressions the animation was based on, blinked!
Muzman on 22/8/2008 at 16:38
It's a shame they play flip through the effects when she's at her most expressive and you can't really see if the rendering is keeping up or not. At times prior to that there's still that 'too much botox' look that smiling CGI work usually gets. Hard to tell if it's her that's doing it or not. Also the super soft lighting doesn't help with clarity and might be a helping hand.
Anyway, cool stuff. Beats having dots stuck all over someone's head.
(they do some whacky shit these days; like in Children of Men where the software rebuilds entire rooms just by watching the footage)
rachel on 22/8/2008 at 16:49
Quote Posted by mol
She blinked, because the actress whose expressions the animation was based on, blinked!
Yeah, but the way it's rendered is, I don't know, a bit off.
My opinion is very certainly flawed anyway as I knew it was a fake before I saw the vid.
kodan50 on 22/8/2008 at 17:23
That was CG? And you all noticed flaws? You could have fooled me. And I compain when a video is encoded from 29.97 to 24.875 because of the excessive 'pulling' that is caused because of it.
Turtle on 22/8/2008 at 17:28
So, when are they teaming up with the Real Doll folks?
