• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

post the most convincing CGI

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
MisterGrey3000 said:
Exactly.
I love practical effects(Just as much as I love digital effects), but I'll never understand the rabid obsession with them from some movie buffs. Just because it's there doesn't automatically make it convincing.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. Shit looks legit
imately bad.

m4jcLO1.jpg
 
D

Delta Assault

Member
The only animated movie I'd list as being close to convincing is Snyder's Legend of the Guardians. Those owls legitimately looked almost photo-realistic.
 
triplestation

triplestation

Member
Ecto311 said:
I was going to say the same thing. The director has a good history of doing awesome special effects that have something magic to them - at least to me. This movie and the shorts on online were amazing. My favorite aspect to them was how he made the movie a movie and the crazy shit around in the movie was not focused on directly. In most special effect movies they focus on the nutty shit and it feels like a movie. This movie and the shorts feel like a world where aliens or monsters are running around but are normal. You don't focus on cars/people/pets in a movie because it's understood those are normal things in the world.
Click to expand...
Finally someone on the same page as me :)
 
G

gugi40

Member
I liked D9 they did a good job.

Jurassic park had some seriously convincing CG.

Avatar was fine I thought it may not look too believable because of the colours and what not but I still really liked the look.
 
W

Winterfang

Banned
I have to give it to the Audrey commercial. I saw it and was like '' this commercial is so stupid" (is nonsensical). But when I found out the girl was Audrey my mind was blown.
 
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Atraveller said:
It looks good, but convincing real life CGI?
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, it was in response to someone bringing up Tangled. But on the specific topic of the thread, I recall some old coworkers who've been doing CG work for well over a decade being convinced some of the environment shots in Rango were from actual plate footage.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
To all the people who are saying things like "We still have a long way to go" etc, I think you'd be amazed at how much modern films are CG. Gravity, for example, really should have been in the animated feature film bit of the oscars. About 2% of the pixels on that film actually came from a camera. I'm pulling that number out of my arse, but I'm doing so conservatively. And you only need to look at the Children of Men, Zodiac and Wolf of Wall Street reels in this thread to see more. Kon Tiki is another good example. But these really aren't exceptions. Next time you see a Rom Com or something, look at the credits and you'll see a VFX team. This stuff is, to greater or lesser extents, in basically ever film made these days, and most of the time the audience goes without noticing.

Which is kind of the point, right? When it comes to convincing, that is.
 
T

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It's common knowledge now that the clone troopers were all CG, but genuine reactions were quite different than hindsight.
Few people noticed that any were CG at first. Then when it was pointed out that some were people were focusing on them, a lot of people noticed the least successful ones. Most people still refused to believe they were all CG for a while, even on CG forums.
Even the first person to mention it online (on CG Society) only noticed it in one scene the first time he saw the movie.
 
B

BlueDogAnchorite

Member
TAJ said:
It's common knowledge now that the clone troopers were all CG, but genuine reactions were quite different than hindsight.
Few people noticed that any were CG at first. Then when it was pointed out that some were people were focusing on them, a lot of people noticed the least successful ones. Most people still refused to believe they were all CG for a while, even on CG forums.
Even the first person to mention it online (on CG Society) only noticed it in one scene the first time he saw the movie.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me. I think it still looks good for that time.
 
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
CyclopsRock said:
To all the people who are saying things like "We still have a long way to go" etc, I think you'd be amazed at how much modern films are CG.
Click to expand...

Nah, plenty of people in the industry themselves who do this for a living will tell you there's still a long way to go.
 
S

strobogo

Banned
The CGI Stormtroopers didn't look good in motion. They really don't look that great in still form, not because of textures or anything, but because of weird proportions. All the chests/stomachs look off and look worse in motion. Especially when running. They look good, but also look like obvious CGI.
 
B

BlueDogAnchorite

Member
Stormtrooper said:
commander_cody_2czero.jpg

The clone troopers were really well done I think so it's not surprising.
Click to expand...

That image you showed looks great to me still. I think the Clone Troopers are some of the best special effects in Episode III. Episode III is when everything started to come together CGI wise. Yes, there are a few bad CGI shots. But there's alot of Great CGI shots for that time than bad in my opinion.I can' twait to see what they do with Episode VII. I'm looking forward to what they are doing with it CGI wise. I really hope they combine the CGI and practical effects well. Since Andy Serkis is in Episode VII, the aliens are going to look great.
 
B

BlueDogAnchorite

Member
strobogo said:
The CGI Stormtroopers didn't look good in motion. They really don't look that great in still form, not because of textures or anything, but because of weird proportions. All the chests/stomachs look off and look worse in motion. Especially when running. They look good, but also look like obvious CGI.
Click to expand...

Yes, they look CGI, but they still look really great. Motion wise, I think they moved fine.
 
D

dejay

Banned
This thread got me to watch Zodiac, so I'm thankful for that.

It had some obvious CG when I knew I was looking for it in that overhead shot, but I doubt I would have noticed otherwise.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
dejay said:
This thread got me to watch Zodiac, so I'm thankful for that.

It had some obvious CG when I knew I was looking for it in that overhead shot, but I doubt I would have noticed otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's the story of this thread, I think. Unless it's clearly CG (Avatar) the stubtle stuff starts to fall apart (just slightly) as soon as it gets pointed out that it's CG.
 
F

Frank Zappa

Banned
I think most of you don't seem to realize that everything on Avatar was CGI... Not only the characters, but all the backgrounds (the forest, etc...).
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Frank Zappa said:
I think most of you don't seem to realize that everything on Avatar was CGI... Not only the characters, but all the backgrounds (the forest, etc...).
Click to expand...
Well, 95% of it. There were jungle sets with trees and bushes etc.

There was actually quite a lot of practical work in the film from vehicles to large sets. But yes,
95% of it all is CG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Avatar 2: Way of the Water is a Technical Marvel
33
2K
sankt-Antonio replied
So uhhh there's been no good Spiderman film since 2004 huh?
2
71
4K
Dark Star replied
So I played Ocarina of Time for the very first time, and this game could do with a modern remake
2 3 4
165
11K
Dirk Benedict replied
Is it common for developers to address negative Steam reviews directly? What do you think about the practice?
18
1K
Drizzlehell replied
[Insider Gaming] Inside Ubisoft – From Low Morale To Internal Tensions
Game Dev
26
2K
BacklashWave534 replied
Top Bottom