@@stargazestudios So, you're telling me Hugh Jackman didn't do a double role in that movie? Or did he just give the expressions for X24 and that is what was replaced later in VFX?
The best visual effects? Logan, no doubt. That shit blew my mind when I found out that in multiple occassions, Hugh Jackman was full CGI. Especially when he sees X-24.
Invisible effects, to me, can be just as amazing, or sometimes, more so than the obvious ones. The craft behind them only adds to their underappreciated magic. Glad to see a video about this. I also love that there is intelligent, constructive analysis/ criticism of films that got certain right or wrong.
I feel the same way about golden-age Hollywood effects. There's so many matte paintings, miniatures etc. that I never knew were effects, till I saw how they were done. Some are still flawless today.
The people behind all this invisible CGI/VFX wizardry don't get the appreciation they truly deserve. I find it fascinating how much reliance the industry has on these people to pull-off even the most basic of scenes such as those in Ugly Betty as you commented here. I could see where CGI was going way back in the late '80s/early '90s when I dreamed of making a career in CGI. All we really had then was the great work by John Lassiter and the Pixar team, of which I re-created many scenes on an Amiga 2000 and Real3D, until Terminator 2 debuted and firmly set the CGI flag in the ground of the future.
The Michael Douglas deaging effect, although amazingly well crafted, is very noticeable (there is a little bit of uncanny valley there), R.D. Jr. one i think looks more natural.
I don't know, when I see clips of it on TH-cam it looks really fake but when I watch the movie on Blu-Ray it looks really convincing. It's like the TH-cam encoding makes CGI effects stand out more for some reason.
A lot of complaints about “unrealistic” digital humans now days are not because the effect wasn’t real enough, it’s because people know that actor is already dead or much older. To people who don’t already know, almost none of them can see the effect.
*SUBSCRIBE TO ME FOR NO REASON* Me too, at the beginning I thought that it sounded a little robotic, but as the video progressed, I thought that it was real because it got more natural.
Yeah the effect in 2049 blew my mind when I found it it was an effect, being unfamiliar with the character from the original I had no idea that it wasn't just another actor
Excellent brother , can you make a video on how to get started with vfx . Mind, tools and area perception of vfx creation. If u do than its huge help for me and many more .
As I know, the first movie in which they used invisible special effects (they actually called them "normal effects") is True Lies, by James Cameron, in 1994 as well.
It's a bit sad that the better these CGI people are at their job, the less recognition they'll actually going to get because no one's even notice any CGI in the first place. Their job is to make sure no one notices that any work was being done in the first place.
Is this a joke? Rogue one digital face was much more noticeable than terminator Yes cause it has more talking scenes But the few seconds that Arnold digi double speaks is not noticeable at all
Most of these look pretty solid, but dear god, what went wrong with Tarkin and Leia? Those two weren't even close, they both looked like assets ripped from one of the EA games.
The text-to-speech voiceover used here almost falls into the uncanny valley of voice; it rides the line between stunted and fluid in an unsettling way. - Is it a Digital Human?
They already do. I mean actors are replaced for digital models in half of Marvel films, especially action shots. Like Hella is CG apart from the face and full on lighting Thor is full CG apart from the head. And now Will Smith is releasing a new film where there will be his young clone running around who is CG character.
Producers mostly care about making money, that's the sad reality of life. Very few care about how the movies are made, just as long as its cheap to make, good enough and it makes money. Also most of the modern day blockbusters with a lot CGI tend to make more money than movies that have CGI you don't notice, so they will continue to do the thing that makes the most amount of money.
I want to know something Why is now everyone calling every algorithm « AI »? Motion tracking is not supposed to be an entity that acts on it’s own, it’s a sequence of operations that analyzes multiple images and translates it into a 3d space.
There is actually a very valid reason. When you hear AI (from people that you can be sure they know what they're talking about) most probably the referred technique is not an algorithm. I have not now looked up to get perfect definitions, but commonly an algorithm is a fixed set of logical and mathematical rules that generally take an input value and give out another one. What is being referred as an AI is a neural network. Like an algorithm you can use a neural network to generate an output from an input, but unlike an algorithm, its working is very organic, much less clear and human-determined, and more importantly is _does_ change and evolve without literal human intervents on its inner working, not in the same way of an algorithm. These AIs are generated with a system similar to neurons talking to each other, and by training (literal trial and error of the inteligence), its behaviour slowly concentrates from pure randomness to the desired results it has been instructed to reach. You can teach an AI how to remove noise from an image, how to understand human language and turn it in digital words, how to recognize the content of a video (youtube's _algorithm_ is an example of this), how to generate music, how to swap faces in videos and photos (look for deepfakes videos)... You don't put literal math in an Ai, defining math formulas that describe the content of pixels with numbers and whatnot, it is deeply different. Look up for Neural Networks to discover more about how actual artificial inteligence is being used in your intrest areas, it's very fascinating.
2028: locations and actors needed: 0 2035: *let your own smartphone render 100% realistic movies from your personal presets, a movie made for you in this moment* 2036: kids “what is Hollywood?”
The avengers new york fight scene, Iron man suit in Iron man 1, Iron man 2 and also skinny steve in Captain America : The first avenger. Marvel do have some great CGI its just that there are not many of them.
The best CGI face replacement I’ve seen so far was in the movie Logan.
Oh, yes.
It was amazing.
It was so good, I honestly thought he did the scene twice most of the time
@@stargazestudios So, you're telling me Hugh Jackman didn't do a double role in that movie? Or did he just give the expressions for X24 and that is what was replaced later in VFX?
@@stargazestudios Oh OK! So Hugh didn't do even the expressions of X24 or anything?
Yeah - the voice is very robotic. Not quite there yet.
Is it your voice or updated text to speech, sounds more natural
Text to speech. It sounds shite.
@@JackRipper8881 What? If it's a computer, it sounds AMAZING. Didn't think it was a machine at all
@@JackRipper8881 I noticed it right away...the sound of the voice is pretty good...the intionation though...and the emotion...is completely lifeless.
@@Praxiszooms I've just realized when this video ended. Been so shocked that I noticed it at the end
i noticed it only after this comment, I thought it was a human voice
The best visual effects? Logan, no doubt. That shit blew my mind when I found out that in multiple occassions, Hugh Jackman was full CGI. Especially when he sees X-24.
Invisible effects, to me, can be just as amazing, or sometimes, more so than the obvious ones. The craft behind them only adds to their underappreciated magic. Glad to see a video about this. I also love that there is intelligent, constructive analysis/ criticism of films that got certain right or wrong.
I feel the same way about golden-age Hollywood effects. There's so many matte paintings, miniatures etc. that I never knew were effects, till I saw how they were done. Some are still flawless today.
The people behind all this invisible CGI/VFX wizardry don't get the appreciation they truly deserve. I find it fascinating how much reliance the industry has on these people to pull-off even the most basic of scenes such as those in Ugly Betty as you commented here. I could see where CGI was going way back in the late '80s/early '90s when I dreamed of making a career in CGI. All we really had then was the great work by John Lassiter and the Pixar team, of which I re-created many scenes on an Amiga 2000 and Real3D, until Terminator 2 debuted and firmly set the CGI flag in the ground of the future.
this is just a text to speech video lmao
It's still an amazingly well put together video
Great video. I have to disagree about Tarkin though, I thought it stood out a mile as a CG head.
Noremac Animation & Games Agreed. I hated it. It was marginally better than Leia but not much.
it was really bad
The Michael Douglas deaging effect, although amazingly well crafted, is very noticeable (there is a little bit of uncanny valley there), R.D. Jr. one i think looks more natural.
I don't know, when I see clips of it on TH-cam it looks really fake but when I watch the movie on Blu-Ray it looks really convincing. It's like the TH-cam encoding makes CGI effects stand out more for some reason.
A lot of complaints about “unrealistic” digital humans now days are not because the effect wasn’t real enough, it’s because people know that actor is already dead or much older. To people who don’t already know, almost none of them can see the effect.
I just found this channel and I need to say that from now on it is my favourite one
wow I went the entire video without realizing that the voice was automated. I figured it out when I read the comments.
*SUBSCRIBE TO ME FOR NO REASON*
Me too, at the beginning I thought that it sounded a little robotic, but as the video progressed, I thought that it was real because it got more natural.
I noticed at the first 30 secs lol
@@artyknotswastaken Huh, I would never had known had I not read the comments 🤔
@@artyknotswastaken i already after 5 seconds!
I thought it was plainly obvious after hearing the first few words.
Superb video
Fast and Furious 7 had some of the most amazing work done for a face replacement by Weta Digital.
I always notice CGI characters, i guess i have a bit of an eye for it. Blade Runner is the first time i was fooled 100%, that effect is stunning.
Yeah the effect in 2049 blew my mind when I found it it was an effect, being unfamiliar with the character from the original I had no idea that it wasn't just another actor
I absolutely love CGI that is CGI you can't tell, even when they show it to you, you still won't see the difference.
Interesting at first but scary shit at the end lol
I do like this Text To Speech better so good job for swamping it out. Good job overall, actually.
I didn't notice until I checked the previous one. I am no native English speaker but this really sounds more humane.
You mean, the narratjon is not natural from a human?
Great videos bro. Keep up the solid work 👍,
great job
Wow, i'm shocked seeing Polish actors in movie about CGI :o
Beautiful works
Excellent brother , can you make a video on how to get started with vfx . Mind, tools and area perception of vfx creation. If u do than its huge help for me and many more .
Terrific!
what TTS do you use????
They probably used a generic one, then later edited the audio to make it sound smooth. (This is just a guess and how I would do it, though)
I've learnt many thing from your channel, thanks VFX Geek, plz. make more video
As I know, the first movie in which they used invisible special effects (they actually called them "normal effects") is True Lies, by James Cameron, in 1994 as well.
Unnoticed? Captain Big Head was the oddest CGI until Flying Head Bruce Banner.
It's a bit sad that the better these CGI people are at their job, the less recognition they'll actually going to get because no one's even notice any CGI in the first place. Their job is to make sure no one notices that any work was being done in the first place.
speaking of fx i never even realised this was text to speech!
The Baby was the most effective digital effect IMO.
What about the Silver Surfer? That effect is still amazing today.
is irony or are yoy actually bragging about ir
thats really amazing
thank you for sharing this and help us to improve more :)
it so cool
At 9:28 Is that suppose to be famous person (that I don't recognizance) or is it justa screen test :)?
Fascinating video, despite the annoying synthesized narration.
Amazing content 😱😱👍👍
What was updated?
Only some details and ending. The video is basically the same.
few videos were added in the ending
Thank you for your uploading and imformarion
Amazing!!
Anyone know name of the movie in the end ???
What happened with the faceswapping of Eastwoods face in In the line of fire (1993)?
Is this a joke?
Rogue one digital face was much more noticeable than terminator
Yes cause it has more talking scenes
But the few seconds that Arnold digi double speaks is not noticeable at all
How do you decide where you put the damn caption "before/after" because l'm so lost it pisses me off !
The captions are auto-generated by TH-cam. I didn't create it.
@@VFXGeek Not the subtitles the before/after in the video regarding the effects
От Таркина так и несло "зловещей долиной", слишком нереалистично он там смотрелся на фоне того же Креника, как и Лея.
3:32 you can see the scene with the tennis courts and buildings are CGI... the textures on the building look flat and looks like a 3D model.
Most of these look pretty solid, but dear god, what went wrong with Tarkin and Leia? Those two weren't even close, they both looked like assets ripped from one of the EA games.
it was awesome!
i just noticed UNREAL ENGINE :D
lmao 1:04, when Steven Seagal was a thing
How could you forget the Benjamin Button movie?
The text-to-speech voiceover used here almost falls into the uncanny valley of voice; it rides the line between stunted and fluid in an unsettling way. - Is it a Digital Human?
Next video will talk about the advancements in speech synthesizing.
just realize months later that is a robot
what if we start having animated celebrities that like appear in different movies and they start winning best part lol
They already do. I mean actors are replaced for digital models in half of Marvel films, especially action shots. Like Hella is CG apart from the face and full on lighting Thor is full CG apart from the head. And now Will Smith is releasing a new film where there will be his young clone running around who is CG character.
How dare you not mention Paul Walker
Yes, the best kind of CGI and special effect is the kind you don't notice. Wish more modern movie producers would make note of that.
Producers mostly care about making money, that's the sad reality of life. Very few care about how the movies are made, just as long as its cheap to make, good enough and it makes money. Also most of the modern day blockbusters with a lot CGI tend to make more money than movies that have CGI you don't notice, so they will continue to do the thing that makes the most amount of money.
De-aged Michael Douglas and Tarkin in _Rogue One_ looked terrible.
Yeah that ping pong scene in forrest gump. Toooootally undetectable. Well... unless you have experienced physics on planet Earth
you got terminator because it was a robot who was doing the talking in the movie not a human being
Make a video of 'TextToSpeech effects - the history and the future'
Who gets the royaltees, from the use of a deaceased actor..??
I want to know something
Why is now everyone calling every algorithm « AI »?
Motion tracking is not supposed to be an entity that acts on it’s own, it’s a sequence of operations that analyzes multiple images and translates it into a 3d space.
There is actually a very valid reason. When you hear AI (from people that you can be sure they know what they're talking about) most probably the referred technique is not an algorithm. I have not now looked up to get perfect definitions, but commonly an algorithm is a fixed set of logical and mathematical rules that generally take an input value and give out another one.
What is being referred as an AI is a neural network. Like an algorithm you can use a neural network to generate an output from an input, but unlike an algorithm, its working is very organic, much less clear and human-determined, and more importantly is _does_ change and evolve without literal human intervents on its inner working, not in the same way of an algorithm.
These AIs are generated with a system similar to neurons talking to each other, and by training (literal trial and error of the inteligence), its behaviour slowly concentrates from pure randomness to the desired results it has been instructed to reach.
You can teach an AI how to remove noise from an image, how to understand human language and turn it in digital words, how to recognize the content of a video (youtube's _algorithm_ is an example of this), how to generate music, how to swap faces in videos and photos (look for deepfakes videos)...
You don't put literal math in an Ai, defining math formulas that describe the content of pixels with numbers and whatnot, it is deeply different.
Look up for Neural Networks to discover more about how actual artificial inteligence is being used in your intrest areas, it's very fascinating.
Please make a video on WETA DIGITAL
I'll add that to my list 👍
Why CGI a hat? Or a street in Queens?
What's with the robot voice?
David Fincher blood in the girl with dragon tatoo
This "Discovery Channel Voice like" really pisses me off on TH-cam
9:51 is that blender?
That is Unreal Engine, now a days most 3D software look alike haha.
NASA effects
04;16 Industrial Light & Magic | VFX and Animation Studio
lol noone says "cahmeirah" supposed to be camera
the top lips of the cgi characters don't move that much as they should
Stop with the auto generated videos already.
Invisible VFX
heheh all the 235 dislikes are motion capture ppl
8:33 Does nobody think that her eyes are just too big?
It always looks to me like her eyes are not quite aligned. Like she's slightly boss-eyed.
can i hit subscribe two times :) or like 10 times
thanks for the video
2028: locations and actors needed: 0
2035: *let your own smartphone render 100% realistic movies from your personal presets, a movie made for you in this moment*
2036: kids “what is Hollywood?”
Michael Douglas - nope, doesn't look right at all.
Marvel's effects are Not invisible either... Seriously are you blind?!
Thr rhino of black panter 😂😂
The avengers new york fight scene, Iron man suit in Iron man 1, Iron man 2 and also skinny steve in Captain America : The first avenger. Marvel do have some great CGI its just that there are not many of them.
Why is the English so peculiar in this presentation? Is it supposed to be comedy?
grand moff tarkin***
The problem with Terminator and Lea is not only movement, but in bad modeling faces.
I agree with you about Leia, but the face model for Arnold was perfect
Real person actors will not be needed anymore then.
Except they will because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to get an actor than to employ a team of people to create a human from scratch
BAN ALL AI IN FILMMAKING
Robot 🤖 voice
Terminator vfx better than the star wars vfx. Star wars vfx was too obvious. Not even close.
Rouge One had awful visual effects for the faces.
All faces that are 3d modeling seems fake its not impossible to notice that
Ugh what's with the text to speech thing... annoying
VFX 101 for people who know nothing of VFX. Honestly, "Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't)" did it better.
9:41 Bolsonaro?
Sorry, I can't listen to automated voices. I welcome our future AI overlords, but I just find current tech jarring and uncanny valley.
polak
still ai voice, boo. interesting content just unwatchable by the audio
LOL that ping-pong scene was Not an invisible effect!!
Grand Moff Tarkin. Not Governor Tarkin. Just sayin'
Complete with fake voice. Bad, very bad.
What’s so hard about talking. Just fucking use your voice.