An ideal indicator would be a regular movie or trailer screening where the audience failed to detect a synthetic actor who (who?) played a lead role, or at least had significant screen time during the screening.
I suppose Avatar is a case in point—it’s worth CGIfying human actors because otherwise they would be totally out of place in the SF environment which is completely CGI.
″There are a number of shots of CGI humans,″ James Cameron says. ″The shots of [Stephen Lang] in an AMP suit, for instance — those are completely CG. But there’s a threshold of proximity to the camera that we didn’t feel comfortable going beyond. We didn’t get too close.″
How would you verify a crossing of the uncanny valley? A movie critic invoking it by name and saying a movie doesn’t trigger it?
An ideal indicator would be a regular movie or trailer screening where the audience failed to detect a synthetic actor who (who?) played a lead role, or at least had significant screen time during the screening.
There isn’t much financial incentive to CGI a human—if they are just acting like a regular human. That’s what actors are for.
I suppose Avatar is a case in point—it’s worth CGIfying human actors because otherwise they would be totally out of place in the SF environment which is completely CGI.
″There are a number of shots of CGI humans,″ James Cameron says. ″The shots of [Stephen Lang] in an AMP suit, for instance — those are completely CG. But there’s a threshold of proximity to the camera that we didn’t feel comfortable going beyond. We didn’t get too close.″
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893_7,00.html