CG will be there in less than 15 years. You won't even be able to distinguish it from real life. Not there yet. Those who say otherwise must be blind.
Practical effects are by far the best, CG dates super quickly.. you only have to look at the 90s movies that uses it.. then compare it to stuff in the 80s that uses practical effects...
So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..
So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..
first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.
TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.
So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..
first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.
Yep. I work in the CG industry
TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.
Yep. I work in the CG industry and even here the popular consensus is definitely that balance and playing to the strengths of each technique is the key to success. Like I said in the other thread, it appears that the new Star Wars film is tipping its scale back towards practical stuff where possible, which I think is great. Abrams knows how to use CG effectively as well, so I'm sure there will be plenty of that where it's needed. I hope that it all blends well and establishes a new standard of not disregarding practical effects in favor of CG.
TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.
Yep. I work in the CG industry and even here the popular consensus is definitely that balance and playing to the strengths of each technique is the key to success. Like I said in the other thread, it appears that the new Star Wars film is tipping its scale back towards practical stuff where possible, which I think is great. Abrams knows how to use CG effectively as well, so I'm sure there will be plenty of that where it's needed. I hope that it all blends well and establishes a new standard of not disregarding practical effects in favor of CG.
That's really good to hear! My one major worry about Ridley doing a follow up to Blade Runner is the use of CG kinda being man dated by the studio's becasue its alot cheaper than building all those models...
must be blind.
my grandparents
So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..
first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.
No , I'm using it properly.. I had no intension of using suspension of disbelief..
I meant exactly what I said.. Suspended belief.. as in I've suspended my belief.. as in NOT fully believe..
Take your crummy antiquated rigid prose elsewhere you hack...
Tp4 logical matrix is perfect..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..
first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.
No , I'm using it properly.. I had no intension of using suspension of disbelief..
I meant exactly what I said.. Suspended belief.. as in I've suspended my belief.. as in NOT fully believe..
Take your crummy antiquated rigid prose elsewhere you hack...
Tp4 logical matrix is perfect..Show Image(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/073.gif)
oh my, you do know that there's a term for NOT fully believing, right? it's called disbelief.
Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..
Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..
You didn't dumb it down, you obfuscated it.
Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..
You didn't dumb it down, you obfuscated it.
This "argument" is worthless when the only examples people keep bringing up are old classics and modern blockbuster Michael Bay superhero flicks aimed at teenagers.
as long as the boobs are practical effects everything else can be cg
real boobs plzas long as the boobs are practical effects everything else can be cg
well........ where does the real vs silicone fall into this... the jiggle just isn't right with silicone IMHO..
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.
Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO. The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later. The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so. T2 on the other hand looks like early CG. The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.
Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO. The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later. The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so. T2 on the other hand looks like early CG. The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.
T2 was one of the least impressive movies to me CG wise even at the time. Nothing really wowed me about it.
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.
Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO. The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later. The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so. T2 on the other hand looks like early CG. The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.
Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.
So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.
Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO. The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later. The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so. T2 on the other hand looks like early CG. The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.
T2 was one of the least impressive movies to me CG wise even at the time. Nothing really wowed me about it.
When I saw it in 1991, I nearly shat myself when the T1000 walked out of the flame after crashing and exploding with the truck he was driving while chasing arnold on the motorcycle..
Btw, I was bored, so I did some comparison images:
Great mixture of practical and CGI is the latest Rid**** film. Somewhat NSFW in the first few seconds because of scantily clad lady peoples,
CG will be there in less than 15 years. You won't even be able to distinguish it from real life. Not there yet. Those who say otherwise must be blind.Those who say otherwise are still watching their motion pictures on their CRT television sets and their VHS tape cassettes. :thumb: