So many of us have expressed our differing views about CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) in film.
I think a fair general opinion is that film has become a bit too dependent on CGI . . . CGI that isn't good enough yet.
They are ung it for shots and ideas that ealy dates a movie as soon as a few years go by.
I don't mind crazy CGI when it fits the story but normally I think the best CGI is when you can't even tell it's there.
The best CGI by far was in "THE ZODIAC" (the one with Jake Gyllenhaal) because I watched the whole film and never noticed a thing . .. then a year or two later I see it getting an award for it's CGI and I realized more than half the backgrounds were CGI . .. it was brilliant.
It enhanced my movie going experience and I didn't even know it.
You see that chick? She's not real, she's a CG veron of actress Emily O'Brien created by facial animation studio Image Metrics.
Got this stuff below from Geekologie: Ung (USC's) Institute for Creative Technologies' special scanning system that can capture facial details down to the individual pore, the face of actress Emily O'Brien was transformed into a digital representation of herself, which could then be entirely machine-manipulated. A special spherical lighting rig captured O'Brien in 35 reference facial poses ung a pair of high resolution digital cameras. The facial maps were then converted into 3D data ung Image Metrics' proprietary markerless motion capture technology.
Oh Happy day!!!