>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^spoco2:
It's a bloody lifelike animation, I'll give it that.
You sure it's animation and not digitized previous footage?


Well, from the article I linked to: "The blend of previously recorded live footage and CGI was created by Digital Domain"

Yeah @lucky760, it's not a hologram (although someone took me to task about the exact definition of hologram once in the past).

It is projected onto a screen and it's a combination of previous live performances of Tupac and a digital creation by Digital Domain.

It's a bloody lifelike animation, I'll give it that.

>> ^ziggystardust:
There is a well known study that basically boils down humans' facial expressions down to 156 different facial expressions. They originally brought in Brad Pitt to make those 156 facial expressions. Those expressions didn't cover everything, so that's when they reenacted everything shot for shot.


Yeah, I read about how they had that as a starting point on cgsociety.com. And I'm sure that logic holds true for getting a fairly good approximation of any expression but it certainly undersells how much we can do with our face, and how subtle it can be.

There's a website that paramount has launched just for the special effects (gee, do you think they're proud of them?) http://www.benjaminbuttonfx.com/ Which covers these and other effects in the film.

One part of the film that did leap out at me while I watched it was the 'youthening' effects, they were obviously an effect. Also, they weren't done by Digital Domain, they were farmed out as they didn't have the time... and I think it shows. The quality of the aging effects vs the obviousness of the youthening ones is quite marked.

Shown during Golden Globes 2007. Redenbacher resurrected in CG, courtesy of Fincher, Crispin and Digital Domain. Higher quality: http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/commercials/3705/ ...