quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: And Spiderhyphenman is a case in point: every trailer and report on the film featured the scene where he swings into the room and removes his hood, and it looks awful.
But then, it was an awful, awful film. The script sucked, the acting sucked, the sets were terrible and the effects atrocious. This, a Spiderman film, was apparently the holy grail of anyone who'd ever read a comic book. My condolences.
You are a minority.
As for CGI. I think its getting really, really good. Look at models, they looked like complete and total ass when they were begining to be used.
I think CG has taken off more then models and will soon (within 10 years) replace them entirely.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
newark: Are you really that far beyond all imaginable hope? It was a fucking Spiderman movie! The man got bitten by a spider and suddenly could climb walls! How is that A-okay, while the movie is ruined because the villain did things you don't think a real lunatic would do?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
OK, I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets last night... and after this thread (and my noticing last year) I kept a close eye on the Quidditch match. IT COULD NOT BE FAULTED! It was amazing! The people looked VERY real in EVERY shot... it was really quite marvellous! Loved it - and it was quite thrilling! The Basilisk looked fantastic too... and even Dobby! I was worried about Dobby - but he was really err realistic!
I think this has to do with the time factor - I read and interview or two where Chris Columbus said that the filmed the Quidditch scenes Straight-up so they had heaps of time for the CGI artists to do their thing.
GREAT STUFF!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I've been following computer graphics and special visual effects my entire adult life, and I've watched with particular interest the development of CGI. I think what suprises me most is that it's been over 9 years since Jurassic Park, and the improvements in rendering have been only incremental. Why this is I'm not entirely sure, but I honestly expected CGI to be a lot less obvious by the year 2000 than it's ended up being.
The key problems with CGI being fake-o looking can be attributed to the following:
1. Light reflection and color reflection. Unless you ray-trace (which is very time consuming and not done that often) the lighting never looks right, because other simulations of reflected light (bouncing off other objects in a scene) don't accurately mimic how light looks. Even ray-tracing isn't a fully accurate representation of how light reflects, but it beats the alternatives. That's giveaway #1.
2. Lighting. Most 3D modelers and animators need a class in basic cinematography. Nuff said.
3. Mapping. You can bump map and texture map and reflection map and road map all you want, but if your 3D model doesn't actually have enough surfaces (faces) on it, the illusion gets destroyed when the object turns just so and what should be a bump is just a flat painted to look like a bump, and your animal brain goes "ugh!" at the sight.
4. Motion Capture. The problem with most motion capture on humans is that it's done by tracking points placed on their bodies. So what you end up doing is tracking points on their skin...but skin moves and slides, so the points don't track all that accurately. It would be better if you could accurately track the rotation of the joints deep down...but that's more difficult to do. Also, we spend our lives watching other human beings, and we instantly know when the slightest thing doesn't look right.
Those are the biggies.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
About Motion Capturing... I went to a Stargate convention here in Brisbane on Sunday (it was FREAKIN' AWESOME!) With Don S. Davis (General George Hammond) and Teryl Rothery (Dr. Janet Fraiser). Teryl had the FUNNIEST story about doing Heimdall the Asgaard.
Basically it involved the 'points' over her body and the fact that the head and eyes of Heimdall corresponded to her... chest!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The more you try to make Spider-man more 21st century, the more you betray the source. It would be like the equivilant of having Superman wear baggy clothes as a costume.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: I've been following computer graphics and special visual effects my entire adult life, and I've watched with particular interest the development of CGI.... blah blah
Jurrasic Park didnt have Radiocity, and it showed.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Jurrasic Park didnt have Radiocity, and it showed. [/QB]
Radio City Music Hall? I wasn't aware there were any T-Rexes amongst the Rockettes!
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Absolutely. I do however think that in this particular arena, now more than ever, modesty is a virtue. Less is more.
I think Peter Jackson's LOTR-crew may have found a new balance in adventure filmmaking. As I said in the AOTC-thread, the focus on sets, miniatures, advanced manipulation of light and color, and basic, forgotten camera tricks, impressed me, and I'm not that easy to impress.
Just like they said, the goal wasn't to show off a new effect and splatter it on the screen, but to introduce these subtle changes so that no one even realizes it's been done.
I can't wait to see what "Nemesis" will be like, the community has changed a lot since "Insurrection".
You voiced something I totally agree with! The biggest key in the latest CGI intense movies is that the meld the FX with the suroundings better than ever! Movies like LOTR and SW:EP II work most of the backgrounds and interactive elements better than the the last generation of CGI movies and definitely better than Star Wars/motion control/standard FX era movies ever could.
posted
RAMA/Nimpin: I agree with you guys about this. I think the reason computer graphics look like computer graphics is that the filmmakers call attention to them to show off how good their effects are. It's been said many times that the best special effect is one that you never notice. Unfortunately, many films in our beloved SF genre are "effects-driven," meaning they exist to show off effects! What I've always wanted to see was an SF film that looked like it was filmed by a news or documentary film crew without sweeping camera moves or dolly shots. I want to feel if they were on the spot and just happened to film the action. As it happens, Ronald Moore is proposing to shoot the new Battlestar Galactica like this: http://www.filmjerk.com/archives/0212/021208galactica.html Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Galactica, but I would like to see a more naturalistic filming style for SF and take the special out of special effects.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I do give a rat's ass about Battlestar Galactica, and that's going to suck... It might look wonderful, and have wonderful stories, but playing that fast and loose with the characters and setting/look is going to kill any chance of my thinking of it as Battlestar Galactica. They're going to end up with a very pretty corpse -- wonderful make-up, but the heart's not beating.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I do give a rat's ass about Battlestar Galactica, and that's going to suck... It might look wonderful, and have wonderful stories, but playing that fast and loose with the characters and setting/look is going to kill any chance of my thinking of it as Battlestar Galactica. They're going to end up with a very pretty corpse -- wonderful make-up, but the heart's not beating.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
