-
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
- Thread starter triplestation
- Start date
- Status
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Hand drawn. Every frame.
mindblowing stuff, Gravity
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Well, sort of.
The base was your basic hand-drawn character animation.
And then there were layers of effects animation to simulate lighting on the character, (like some traditional animation only more elaborate) also mostly hand-drawn.
But some of that was pure photographic trickery, like the sequins on Jessica Rabbit's dress.
no way that had a $30 mill budget. . . no wayyy./
tis true, a remarkable achievement
Illithid Dude
Member
The first Iron Man had some really great CG. I thought the suit was practical until I saw the behind the scenes stuff. Just looks super tactile and weighty.
Fahrenheit
Banned
I see gravity coming up a lot and I dunno. While not bad I think some parts toke you out of it. Like a lot of the zero G Sandra Bullock stuff were she was in her underwear looked bad enough to take me out of the moment.
That looks amazeballs
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Well, it's easily closer to being purely hand-drawn than Fantasia.
I don't see anyone debating that Fantasia wasn't hand-drawn.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Digital compositing in something like Zodiac is really well done but on the scale of difficulty and achievement:
Digital Composited Scene w/ Camera Tracking <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Full CG scene
Digital Composited Scene w/ Camera Tracking <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Full CG scene
It looks terrible in motion, also doesn't really look like Audrey Hepburn.
I_D
Member
Seems like you guys all missed the part where I said Avatar is the best CG ever made, to date.
Like I said, the fact that nitpicking is required to see flaws means it's damn good.
But I can see where people are coming from when they say it's not perfect.
Terrible? it looks super real.
It looks like a McFarlane statue.
Scooter155
Member
90's win again.
Yup. Attention to detail has always mattered more than using the most "advanced" technology.
District 9 was a pet project of Weta. The $30m number is deceptive.
no way that had a $30 mill budget. . . no wayyy./
(Although technically they did production design and not the actual CG).
Also this.
..ok that was a really cute commercial. Seeing her like that almost made it seem like she was living again in a second life. <3
Frank Zappa
Banned
Legally, could someone use a CGI version of a deceased actor for a movie?
I mean, without paying anyone.
I mean, without paying anyone.
Legally speaking? yes
Usually, most of Hollywood actors are paid in advance even before their movies come out.
Like it or not, there's a contract (clause) so the contract holder is free to do whatever they want: ditch their entire role/footage, try to fix it with previously recorded stuff or (in this case) CGI.
I assume there would be a point where the studios talk the deceased actor's family and express what their plans are and if they agree with them but even if they don't, there's nothing they can do about it.
Frank Zappa
Banned
And how about a regular guy?
For example, someone posted a video from Vimeo of a very talented artist who did a CGI film by himself.
Let's say he creates a photorealistic CGI movie using Audrey Hepburn as the main character.
Would it be legal?
Of course not. You can't use someone's likeness without permission. Even if that person is dead. Especially a famous person who still has an estate to sign off on her likeness.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I don't know if it's pure nostalgia or what, but why people seem to think stuff like this or this looks superior to anything past 2002 is beyond me. Forgetting for a second superior lighting and texturing technology, compare simply how much better the T-Rex in Peter Jackson's King Kong moves compared to Jurassic Park. When the T-rex in JP is walking or moving slowly, it looks great, but any faster and his animations become pretty jarring to look at with modern eyes.
Now I'm not saying the dinosaurs in King Kong are used as effectively as in Jurassic Park, or are vastly superior in every single way (lest we be reminded of the stampede scene) - but from a pure tech standpoint, there's absolutely nothing about JP's CGI that hasn't been bested in other films since.
And good lord, King Kong came out nearly ten years ago 
All I can think of when I see stuff like this is Metal Gear, lol.
TrAcEr_x90
Member
Are you kidding me? The compositing in the king Kong clip is atrocious. The cgi elements are pretty awesome but the fantastical animation hurts the overall quality.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
The only good effects CGI wise that remember from King Kong was King Kong himself, and those weird worms thing. I didn't like any of the other CGI effects in it. Plus the acting was horrible.
TabForaCause.com
Banned
taken from:
Stargate Studios Virtual Backlot Reel 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
originally found this video re-uploaded (with much more dramatic music) and titled,
"WARNING: News Media Could Employ Hollywood Trickery..."
imagine this technology in the hands of master propagandists. they could CREATE the news.
To Far Away Times
Member
There's a lot of really smart choices here. Most of Jurriasic Park's CGI heavy moments take place in nighttime, raining or low light settings (sometimes all three), which helps hide detail. In this one, we're also drawn away from the CGI car. We know the Dinosaur is fake (it has to be, right?), but it's far away. Some of the more upclose and daylight CG is less convincing, but considering this movie was made in '93 and the CGI holds up to modern standards, it's pretty damn impressive.90's win again.
In terms of most impressive CGI, I have to go with Avatar. I bet most people would be surprised what is and isn't CGI in that movie.
Rodney McKay
Member
Very impressive
I hadn't been impressed by movie CG for a loooong time before I say this movie. For me it was the combination of super details on the simple models (textures and stuff), plus the carefully done "non-perfect stuff" (you can notice some LEGO pieces are like the tiles are off just a little bit or scratched), the camera effects making it look like everything is actually miniatures, and most importantly was the fact that they used real motion capture limitations to model the animations.
They limited themselves to animate only on the planes of movement that the actual objects would have, so you don't have things bending or stretching. I knew the movie was CG before seeing it, but I was honestly wondering if parts of it were real because of how good it looked. So much more creative and refreshing than the usual "animated look" most Dreamworks and Pixar movies are having these days.
Man, most of the time these days when CGI is pulled off well I don't even think of it as well-done CG. I just accept it as a real shot and stop caring about how they actually achieved it. In my opinion the best effects of this day and age have passed the point where great effects alone can impressed me because they all look "real enough" to me. After the first few minutes on on Pandora in Avatar I just criticized the movie itself instead of marveling at the CG in it.
Was Third & Seventh by Alex Roman mentioned in this thread? I heard of this from gaf a while ago and I'm still impressed.
http://vimeo.com/7809605
Beautiful stuff.
http://vimeo.com/7809605
Beautiful stuff.
I thought the dinos were animatronic? Or am I confusing the definition of CG? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B4J9TBlFxAg#t=20
It was a mix of the two.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
BattleMonkey
Member
The new Robocop deserves an honorable mention. Most of the time Robocop is 100% CGI in the movie, face excepted.
It works completely seamlessly in the film.
What was the point of having him in a suit then?
Acting purposes, and the director wanted the chance of using shots of a real suit as much as possible in close-ups and such, although in the end it wasn't feasible.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
The new Robocop deserves an honorable mention. Most of the time Robocop is 100% CGI in the movie, face excepted.
It works completely seamlessly in the film.
So basically what they've been doing with Iron Man? ;P
The new Robocop deserves an honorable mention. Most of the time Robocop is 100% CGI in the movie, face excepted.
It works completely seamlessly in the film.
Good call. There are some rough spots here and there, but generally the effects work in Robo 2014 is spectacular.
Sure, but doesn't negate the quality of work elsewhere, man.
triplestation
Member
jett i like you
i like you i like you i like you
i saw robertcop like 2 weeks ago and yeah the cgi was GREAT
also how about that jackie earl halie
i like you i like you i like you
i saw robertcop like 2 weeks ago and yeah the cgi was GREAT
also how about that jackie earl halie
Atraveller
Banned
I was pointing out that half of your nitpicks are not real issues.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
The only big issue is the weight of the animal with it's animation. There are quite a few times when it moves and walks and the weight just isn't there. As for still imagery it's pretty ace though.
partime
Member
If I was currently watching Breaking Bad and saw this,
I would have had to hurt someone...
It's also usually done so that they can mimic the exact lighting of the scene. Easier to match if you have a guy wearing a similar suit with real light bouncing off of it.
Seriously, my mind is blown!
- Status