Nothing compared to the detail in one of Michelango's paintings - and even then it's still not comparable to the real thing.
CGI can't displace live actors, sorry. And people don't watch animated films for that kind of depth anyway - so what are you seriously arguing?
CGI can't displace live actors, sorry. And people don't watch animated films for that kind of depth anyway - so what are you seriously arguing?
The amount of work the lead artist put into that one segment of The Animatrix, Kid's Story, is more than some of Michelangelo's paintings. And that has nothing to do with live action movies so it's irrelevant.
CGI can't displace live actors. Yeah, and? What do you mean what am I arguing? What are you arguing? You know when Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within came out a lot of people didn't even realise it was CGI right away. They thought it was live action initially.
You said animation doesn't have as much depth as live action films. I'm arguing that animation can have just as much depth as a live action film. I'm talking about amount of work that's put in creating it, story, plot, character development, drawing/creating cgi effects, etc... I'm talking about all of the detail that goes into the movie. I'm talking about detail in it's broad sense.
I mean what's the point of arguing that you can't draw a face as close to a face as a real face? Because it's like your saying live action is better only because there's more detail in a real face than a drawn one, which is just stupid. Please tell me that's not what you've been trying to say all this time.