I'm not here claiming to know the truth, because no one has any proof in either direction. Just watch these videos, and tell me its not possible.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa2oT1wMIs (Disney, 2015)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk (Face2Face, 2016
Thoughts:
At 3:45 in video 1, we see what problems can arise when a change in lighting happens. You might have noticed that every video Snowden and Assange have been seen in since their exile (that I can find), has been in a diffuse, studio-lit setting, even when they are presumably broadcasting from a home setting behind a webcam.
At 5:00 in video 2, we can see that they have overcome the issues Disney had with occlusion distorting facial wrinkles, as well as any issues with a human model or digital render wearing glasses.
Keep in mind, both of these projects are over a year old, and the better of them was developed by college students, using standard webcam hardware for capture. I would imagine the cutting edge versions of this tech make CGI virtually indistinguishable from real human faces. I would be also be willing to bet these results become increasingly more lifelike when using multiple cameras, and after teaching a computer extensively what certain gestures and ticks the subject has.
oftotc ago
I'll go down this path with you, but let me add this to your theory:
Back in the late 1990's, Robert Zemeckis was making movies that advanced the cinematic arts of motion capture. For whatever reason, he connected with Peter Jackson down in NZ (check the credits for 1997's "Contact" which lists Weta Digital).
Jackson, along with Andy Serkis, invested incredible amounts of practical study to create exceptional CGI skin, hair, muscle AND motion. The footage of the mocap studios used by Jackson and Zemeckis show an intricately designed environment for producing such imagery.
Then, this happened, a few months ago.
I suspect the deep state is already using this technology.