Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
This might be a good thing, maybe people will begin looking at the things that make movies good, such as directors and writers?
Even after they are replaced by AI, some labs will be recognized as better than others.
I'm glad you brought up old Hollywood. Although I wasn't thinking of them at the time, you actually used them to make my point for me.
Hollywood is fake. Even in the classic days, it was all about fantasy. Even your examples are just actors playing people that don't exist in real life, in situations that don't happen in real life.
Yeah, the 3D version is more stiff. It feels like the pose is off.
It's not your hobbies. It's how I interpreted your comments, and that's what I was responding to.
Nobody has said that here. Really, "put out of work and starve"? How do you get that from anything I or anybody else here has said?
A lot of people have shared their different opinions. This thread is a conversation with different oppinions. There is no "main theme".
Again, nobody has said that here. As I said in my prior post, I think they are not doing the best job they can do in their craft. To say it more directly, my perception is that their performances could and should be better. In an industry where they can take advantage of endless training and role-playing activities, then do multiple takes in any given scene, there is no good reason for not giving better performances.
Maybe they do need to spend more time in the real world, in order to get those better performances. But "hate" is such a strong word.
Not gonna watch a you tube video on drawings. I don't need to because I'm not fighting you. I'm not (and never have said) that we should get rid of classic techniques, and I am totally confused as to how you inferred that from my post that you quoted. Really, I'm not your enemy here.
Okay, both of those statements have me very confused. Are you for or against Wacom tablets and pencils? Or are you taking me to task for being for or against those things?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but for the record I see no reason to get rid of either. Different tools for different applications. It's all good. Different tools for different people. That's good too!
Who can afford the film and processing anymore, to say nothing of repair costs. I happily gave away all my film cameras years ago.
I won't dis anybody who wants to use them today, but man oh man, those were some labor intensive days and tons of wasted resources, time, and money.
That doesn't mean everyone has to like it ... like not everyone has to like and buy skimpy daz outfits. It's just we might see a lingerie set every day or every other day in the store while other outfits appear less often and some content might be considered niche.
Same for movies. 3D animation is what sells - and 2D animation has still its admirers and rightfully so - but has become niche. Currently 3D characters in movies outside of 3D animation is somewhat niche - it might change in the future. CGI characters are not going to replace real person actors. Moviemaking has not killed theater either. Keyboards have not killed the piano. Even the modern Boehm flute has not killed the wooden flute - they are still built and played - niche.
Also, CGI might give indie filmmakers possibilities that didn't exist before. And before we debate about the issue "indie vs mainstream" it's not about which is better. It's about diversity, and as the audience having more options and giving creative people and the audience more choices. We've seen productions with the help of CGI that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, and to me, this is great.
Funny... I like - and have always liked and even preferred - a lot of stuff from way before I was born...
But let's talk again in 30 years or so....
I'm not aware there was ever a question about that? After the last few episodes of GOT, people were up in arms about the bad writing. Jedi Returns earned much hate for both directing/writing and Rian Johnson. Doubt there are many people who think a famous actor can make up for bad writing and directing. It's more like, if this actor is in it, there's a good chance that the rest of the production is good too.
@Subtropic pixel
I don't need to because I'm not fighting you. I'm not (and never have said) that we should get rid of classic techniques, and I am totally confused as to how you inferred that from my post that you quoted. Really, I'm not your enemy here.
I hinted at this. This thread has splintered and added so many weird analogies and references and sentiments, that I don't think anyone can follow it. And I don't think anyone is reviewing several pages back and we're responding across each other's posts to take away just the gross sentiments. This thread is a rapidly moving....thing. So, yeah, from here on out expect some misquotes and the mixing of- who said what and who meant what.
I will reset this again and remind us - that we are discussing two different things now. Will 3D characters REPLACE live actors and will 3D characters ever be BETTER than live actors? Two different arguments...totally.
AND, we are asking in terms of replacing them for WHAT YOU WANTED THEM FOR -in the first place.
Which is the acting. Fooling us into believing they are a thing or doing a thing.
Or, you can roll with TECHNOLOGY marches ON and believe that whatever is considered the best technology will always replace the old system.
Maybe acting is hard since it takes BOTH the performance and the stage to get it right. So many pieces have to work together to... get...it...right....
and somehow we think a programmer or 3D artist is going to get it more right because their workstation will get more powerful over time.
So better? Probably never, but replace, I could see that. And I think there are numerous examples where it has already happened. But that leads to more tangents....
No one wanted streaming, but here we are....
No one wants subscriptions, but here we go...
We have the weirdness of imagination - We can go to Theater and Broadway and watch a play and NOT lose our minds over a cardboard tree and a wooden sword, but somehow, less-than perfectly convincing CGI throws us off. Like, we walk in expecting, no demanding it in some instances and are fine with 'a mere representation' in others.
It's the getting close to realism that makes us judge differently.
Going back to 2D: If you animate Tom & Jerry or Bugs Bunny style, you can get away with murder.
Not so with realistic humans. The more realistic they are, the worse it gets. Rotoscoping live action looks weightless and floaty, doing it too cartoony and it will look creepy as well. Only a very fine balance looks good. (I was always bad at doing the very realistic characters) Even at Disney the humans looked off more than once (Pocahontas, anybody?)
The same with 3D. Mr Incredible, Ratatouille, Rapunzel, Buzz Lightyear, Gru will not easily fall uncanny valley mode.
But try to do a fully realistic character, and your mind knows how thay should move and look - we see real humans every day. And when the small details are off; it's creepy as hell. See Rogue One Tarkin & Leia. Those weren't humans, those were wax figures.
Suspension of Disbelief works better if you don't come too close to reality, like with those cardboard stage trees. They are symbols for trees, not the real thing...
It's rather funny, but much of what's being debated in this thread was actually addressed in an old 1981 film--called "Looker", staring James Coburn and Albert Finney.
It's a really good thriller, but there was some really logical goofs that made it a rather laughable film with such a forward-looking premise where they correctly predicted the eventual technology that can replace a live actor with CGI, they utterly failed at conceiving the same thing can be done to replacing film stages with CGI, too...and even neglected a certain little used TV magic and were relying on LIVE BROADCASTING like they had to do in the early days of Dark Shadows and Doctor Who--check out the fantastic chase scene where Finney is trying to avoid being killed in the last 30min of the film!
(or they may have intentionally tossed in those logical goofs, who knows?)
at least on Chrome I can mouse over the blacked out bits, on my iPad i would be stuffed
It's a major plot spoiler--you really should watch the movie first
I have seen it, likely back when it was released
And what happens when the technology is good enough that the computers get the small details right?
I'm not going to put limits on what future technology is capable of.
...yes they portrayed fictitious characters, but did so very, very well and had human imperfections that made the characters more believable and both endearing as well as enduring.
...it used a stock pose that i modified a bit to try and get more flow given the limitations of he rigging.
...well, to replace my full kit with comparable digital gear would be far more than I could ever afford on my severely limited income today so it comes down having to make the most out of what I have as best I can.
Besides, it also requires one to put more thought and planning into each shot due to the more "limited resources" and "permanency" film has compared digital. Some of us enjoy that challenge for when you get that perfect shot it's a great feeling, kind of like hitting the ball out of the park or sticking that perfect "10.0" landing.
I'm tempted to say that in the sketch she looks much older; the fact that this is the case, demonstrates that ideas, and the art representing those ideas changes. It could of course demonstrate other things too. :)
Now that's where I disagree; one is a younger character with fewer and less pronounced curves; this gives the illusion of being stiff, perhaps.
...yeah I agree, she does. Never had a "young" RPG character before. Was still very much into the comic book style then and didn't much work with young teen characters at the time (at least she wasn't as "well endowed" as most female characters in comics). Even when it came to characters such as Kitty Pride, Jubilee, and the Teen Titans, they often had more adult like physiques just with slightly younger faces. Crikey Kitty was supposed to be 14, Jubilee 12 - 13 (though in her "debut" in X-Men #244, and her appearance in the Wolverine title afterwards, she actually did look more like her "purported" age). Then there was Starfire of the Teen Titans - yikes the way she was drawn, she put Dolly Parton and most pinup girls to shame.
Not exactly.
You have to understand the time scale of Star Wars (aka. "A New Hope", aka "Episode IV", but truly "Star Wars" with no numbers or renaming). Even at FTL speeds, those were some pretty long trips: the Millenium Falcon one was long enough for Luke to get partially trained as a Jedi. Obviously, Leia would get lonely, and R2D2 only had so many extendable manipulators. And before she was retconned into being Luke's sister in Star Wars III: Revenge of the Jedi she and Luke had a thing going on (read "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", the first Star Wars II, the one that was created to serve either as a low-cost sequel (eliminating that expensive Harrison Ford guy) or a made-for-TV movie/pilot for a new series).
So, since the future has no birth control (see note 1) Luke got her pregnant. Hiding the clild away to prevent embarassment to her high-born family, their daughter Rey grew up in relative obscurity, but acquired great Mary Sue powers from being born of two powerful force users.
Later, when Darth Vader had Leia in torture chamber, he truly "had" Leia in the torture chamber. (The torture droid's manipulators serving as the visual euphamism for this obvious plot development). After blowing up the death star (we won't get into the symbolism of Luke being the only person capable of shooting a torpedo down the vent) she again hid out, this time in the Wookie monestary on P'Jem, giving birth to the only known spawn of a light side and dark side Force desciple. It wasn't long before the hideously deformed (why was Luke and Leia's child pretty, while Vader and Leis's was hideously deformed) Bam-Bam's enormous force powers hurled him back thousands of parsecs through time and hundreds of years through space, causing him to grow up alone on a tropical planet where he would raise himself feraly, only retaining some baby talk Leia had spoken to him in his all-too-brief childhood). Parthogenically reporducing, these offspring evolved a language loosly based on baby-talk, causeing them to call their species "Gungan", their planed "Na-na Boo-boo", and naming their kids things like Jar-Jar, Whoo-Pee, and Ram-Bo. By the time of The Phantom Menace, the Force had diffused through a population of some two-billion Gungan, and would not reassembly itself into "The Grey Side of the Force" until Star Wars episode XIII, The Rise of the Gungun", at which point Jar-Jar's young daughter (we think. Hard to tell with Gungan) Har-De-Har-Har would face off against his great-great-great-great-great-great-great half-niece and quarter-nephew Rey and Kylo-Solo (Ben Solo having embraced the Gungan ways of the "grey side" by this time).
Note 1) as evidence that the future has no birth control, consider Saavik, illigimate daughter of Spock and the unnamed Romulan commander from "The Enterprise Incident"; David, Valeris, Mary 17, and Andrew, James Kirk's illigitimate kids by Carol Marcus, the unnamed Romulan commander from "The Enterprise Incident" (he couldn't let Spock one-up him), the android Alice 34 from "I, Mudd", and Yeoman Janice Rand, respectively.
...wait, you're implying incest? Not sure Lucas would have gone for that.
Wow, you are grasping at some serious straws there and Star Trek has nothing to do with it..
Age has nothing to do with line of action.
https://support.animationmentor.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/200964893-Posing-Silhouette-and-Line-of-Action-References
https://www.makingcomics.com/2014/02/22/elements-gesture/
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/e4/ac/12e4ac7d7d0bf665d0046e5c34054cf0.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/341147740509139993/&docid=23p52lu4JzffLM&tbnid=UaMSc57AM4DvkM:&vet=10ahUKEwiA6u34lbnkAhVABGMBHbStCacQMwhKKAMwAw..i&w=1280&h=960&client=firefox-b-d&bih=986&biw=1488&q=marvel way line of action&ved=0ahUKEwiA6u34lbnkAhVABGMBHbStCacQMwhKKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8
https://twitter.com/etheringtonbros/status/1131849605627416576
A line of action is usually a C or S shaped cruved line around which an artist constructs the pose. It is usually pushed a bit to make the pose more dynamic than in real life. Not doing this mostly results in weak, stiff poses. And, yes, that goes for 3D as well.
Let's pretend there is enough computer power to easily simulate humans in motion perfectly. This time will come sooner or later (if not 3rd WW comes first). The use of 3d computed actors will depend on the movie and it's theme. Movie making and acting is sometimes quite personal and complicated, it is an art. I don't intend to insult programmers but I doubt they have the imagination to program all the different reactions and playstyles of actors in ambitious art movies. If so, it would be a totally different art.
3d computed actors will be great in entertainment movies. For example for many of the generic figures of the Lord of the Ring movies, like Aragorn or Legolas, no human actors would be necessary. You could also replace anybody in Star Wars or Transformers with artificial persons. Could you do in Citizen Kane? I doubt it.
In the meantime I would entirely be satisfied with 3d models which don't look generated but natural in normal rendered pictures, as they do not now almost always except under very special conditions (like no hair, no clothes, special light etc.). That should be the next goal to achieve.
Of course using 3d characters is already done in most movies for creatures or stunt scene making. So yes in this sense they already replace live models. As for a believable replacement of a human character this is another story. So far I didn't see anything good yet, even the best studios such as Disney in Tron Legacy didn't make it for the young Kevin Flynn and Clue characters in my opinion.
I protest strongly against this whole statement!
I second your protest...
Hmm...this discussion has political and religious undertones and should be locked
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a blaster at your side.