# CGI vs Models and Live Actors In Sci-Fi Cinema and TV - A Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 16, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cgi-vs-models-and-live-actors-in-sci-fi-cinema-and-tv-a-discussion/269575 "2004-10-16T20:45:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cgi-vs-models-and-live-actors-in-sci-fi-cinema-and-tv-a-discussion/269575/21 "2004-10-18T03:04:38Z")
> [@Tuco](#): > > The best I’ve seen is in Forest Gump - when Lt Dan jumps off the boat, the edge of the boat is all CGI. Actually, only a small section of the railing is CGI. In a lot of the filming the actor’s legs were clearly visible and clad in “bluescreen tights”. They removed his legs and healed the backgrounds in post. Which brings up an interesting question. If bluescreen style work CGI or bluescreen when it’s done on a computer? Oh wait, they call that “digital compositing”. What about the scenes from the Matrix where bluescreen (well, greenscreen in that case) work is used as a basis for CGI work (I.E. the bulletime effects work). As in there’s an authentic digital composite every X frames, but the frames between the reference frames are digitally manufactured and rendered. What’s that? Incidentally, while I agree the bulletime effects didn’t look that bad… the straight CGI scenes in Matrix:Reloaded looked like utter utter crap. The physics were good (so to speak), but the textures were bad. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cgi-vs-models-and-live-actors-in-sci-fi-cinema-and-tv-a-discussion/269575/22 "2004-10-18T03:18:07Z")
Here’s another vote for the annoyance at CGIs. They’re great at metallic/plastic surfaces, not so great at everything else. I think instead of going for photorealism, they should try emulating various art mediums, and make it more of a computer-aided matte painting or something. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cgi-vs-models-and-live-actors-in-sci-fi-cinema-and-tv-a-discussion/269575/23 "2004-10-18T04:59:54Z")
> [@Agrippina](#): > > Pixar. > > Well, there’s the theory of [Uncanny Valley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley). It normally belongs to robots, but new theories are sprouting about unease towards really good CGI people. Thanks for the link, **Agrippina**! I had thought of much the same thing: “caricatures,” as defined in the article **rjung** linked to, often work better for the viewer than attempts at “realism.” Homer Simpson works better than Snow White (although she’s still not bad), but any more-accurate character is likely to fail. I suspect the reason is that our brains are hard-wired to recognize humans, and we spend our whole lives practising and perfecting that skill. Homer is far enough off that we can accept him as _representing_ a human, while a character much better than Snow White would be recognized as _being_ human - but _wrong_. As a side note, the motion capture mentioned in **rjung** ’s link is just a high-tech version of [rotoscoping](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope). One of the best examples is the Betty Boop cartoon [_Snow White_](http://www.heptune.com/snowwhit.html), featuring Cab Calloway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cgi-vs-models-and-live-actors-in-sci-fi-cinema-and-tv-a-discussion/269575.md?page=1)