Comments on: AVATAR: Performance Capture and the Oscars

By: Oaklander

Oaklander — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:43:56 +0000

Crediting solely the actor for a captured performance is a film such as avatar, does a great disservice to the numerous laborers who worked on bringing those characters to life. Performance capture, even the systems used on Avatar, only goes so far to capture the subtleties of bio mechanics. So much manual adjustment has to happen for these things to fit in a digital production pipeline, I don’t care what hype Big Jim is touting. Muscular flex, pupil dilation, color shifting, and light response are all determined by a an army of researchers, software developers, animators, digital lighters and production technicians. Sure the actors work hard. Sure they bring cache to a film. But did you go see Avatar for Sam Worthington? Really?

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:26:33 +0000

Actor without a voice wins Oscar:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0559144/

Marlee Matlin “Children of a lesser God.”

By: siberian

siberian — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:08:55 +0000

funny take on avatar – http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2656245/13_problems_with_the_first_draft_of.html?cat=40

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:12:24 +0000

Snubbing Zoe Saldana as Neytiri is a bit like snubbing Laughton when he played the hunchback in The Hunchback of Notre Same IMO. All it is is CGI makeup. The CGI enhanced Zoe’s performance just as much as the practical makeup enhanced Laughton’s performance. So, this is kind of ridiculous. I’ve never seen CGI that has ever felt more real and more alive than Zoe’s Neytiri.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:20:56 +0000

I agree with Mar. In fact I will go a step further and say that I think it’s harder to act when there is nothing there but blue space. Make believe is more complex than real live action since we know in reality nothing is in the scene with the actor. It’s time the Oscars step into the 21st Century and quit snubbing Sci-fi and the actors!!!

By: Mar

Mar — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:15:51 +0000

Performance Capture or E-Motion (emotion, geddit?) Capture deserves a nod for acting nominations at the oscars. Every little eye twitch, turns, twists is captured onto their ‘CG body’, or as gamers readily call these days, Avatar.

Really, how does one quantify how much ‘act’ goes into a scene where a beast chases you from behind, or a scene where you’re riding on a giant flying bird (banshee) and compare it to a live action scene where the act is about running away from an explosion. Which one goes back to acting 101? Answer: BOTH. So why the snub of one over the other?

By: Andre Soares

Andre Soares — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:10:55 +0000

Kevin, Michael,
Thanks for the response.
But whenever I look at the Na’vi’s eyes (see top photo), they certainly don’t look real. They look painted over or something. I understand that performance capture would “capture” eye movement, but if the eyes are enlarged, colored, etc. how much of the eye expressiveness is real, how much is the computer artist’s work? I know a painter can capture his subject’s look — anger, sadness, happiness, all of that put together — but when we look at the canvas we see the painter’s work, not the real thing. I know that’s not quite the same as “performance capture,” but I can’t quite draw the line in terms of where the performance ends and the drawing begins.

By: Kevin Atkinson

Kevin Atkinson — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:33:21 +0000

The eyes of the Na’vi were also performance-captured, and with very high fidelity. Eye direction, eye-blinks, brow-movement, eyelid-movement, the works.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:56:48 +0000

“The eyes of the Gollum were computer-animated — and so were those of the Na’vi in Avatar.”

No, the Na’vi’s eyes in Avatar aren’t animated. The same system they used was also able to capture the eye movements of the actors as well. Only the tail, ears, and nose are tweaked to the animator’s- and Cameron’s, content.