When you are shooting traditional motion capture, it's a big footprint on set. There are, like, 16 cameras that are needed and constraints over the lighting.
The amazing thing about motion capture is everything translates. Your slightest emotions translate through the suit and into the character.
Motion capture is amazing. I prefer it. You wear a 'Power Ranger'-esque suit, you have tape balls on you, you have 60 cameras around you capturing your every movement and there's no hair, no makeup.
Motion capture has become very specialized but also still just a tool of filmmaking.
The great thing about performance capture is you can go off, and then, without changing costume, you can become another character.
I am a bit evangelical, I know, but performance-capture is still misunderstood.
If a scene called for numerous Oompas to join in a narrative song and dance, I would perform the steps for all of them with subtle distinctions of expression and movement. When the images were joined with the help of a computer, I became an entire troupe.
Shane McMahon did his own mo-cap. Did you guys know that? He went and did his own mo-cap. He didn't want somebody doing his moves. Shane did his own mo-cap.
Performance capture is a tool that young actors will need in the next 10, 20 years. It's on the increase, as you say. It's not going away.
Performance capture, for me, is finding the essence of a performance.
People used to say, 'Andy Serkis lent his movements to Gollum,' and now they say, 'Andy Serkis played Caesar.' That's a significant leap.
