Brianimaniac
Banned
That's easier. Lots of effects look perfectly fine on the big screen, then look obviously fake when you see them at home.
-
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.
A better and common reason to do that is that the area has changed since the time the movie is supposed to take place.
Blargonaut
Banned
I'm actually surprised no one's said Starship Troopers yet.
Some of the Bug CGI really stands up even today, for a 90's movie:
The ship CGI not so much though.
Some of the Bug CGI really stands up even today, for a 90's movie:
The ship CGI not so much though.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
What's funny is that the ships actually aren't CGI (with rare exceptions) and they're more dated than the CGI.
Unless you mean the really obvious CGI in the propaganda commercials.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
You know what an Orangutan is but you call a Chimp a monkey? For shame sir, for shame!
captainraincoat
Banned
CG render of Robert de Niro
not knocking the cg work as its pretty impressive but why do they always stuff up the eyes.....a little less gloss and that would be perfect
Gollum in LOTR looks somewhat dated, actually. The difference between it and The Hobbit's Gollum is pretty large.
I think people just don't understand or fail to realize that everything in Pandora is CGI. The scenery is absolutely mind-boggling.
jim-jam bongs
Member
They're aliens which don't have facial expressions and motions which approximate those of a human being though, so despite knowing they didn't exist I simultaneously had no expectations for how they should appear. That made it easier for me to maintain the suspension of disbelief, whereas with Avatar I frequently felt as though there were tiny niggling details which were ever so slightly off.
SolidusDave
Member
.
Avatar is the most incredible CG every achieved imo, that said and for the focus of this thread, I don't find it to be convincing in terms of realism. I know we can't really compare the characters and environments to much, but it always felt like an amazing achievement in animation to me. Not realistic in any sense.
It is likely just the lighting, but I find District 9 to be more 'realistic'.
It is likely just the lighting, but I find District 9 to be more 'realistic'.
The movie as a whole did a good job in the CGI department but denying there were some severe flaws is just.. wrong.
Sapiens
Member
I really hate when the "purists" come in these threads and shit all over years of hard work just because something was not shot on location using miniatures.
I mean, people complaining about Zodiac being shot in a studio? So what? What about Singin' in the Rain...
Does it bother you that one of the greatest scenes ever committed to film was shot in a studio with "fake" rain?
All film is illusion.
I mean, people complaining about Zodiac being shot in a studio? So what? What about Singin' in the Rain...
Does it bother you that one of the greatest scenes ever committed to film was shot in a studio with "fake" rain?
All film is illusion.
freenudemacusers
Member
I was definitely taken back by how concrete and tangible everything felt in that movie. Almost visually overwhelming at times as it felt like I was getting buckets of lego thrown at me.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
Because Fincher wanted completely accurate 1960's san francisco crime scenes. The modern day locations are very different from what they were back then.
You'd be amazed how many movies do this for some scenes, it's just that Zodiac had a staggering amount of them and noone noticed. The only scenes that are really obvious are the flybys through San Fran bay, whenever CG is the focus it's hard not to scruitinize it, but when it's the background and slightly out of focus you can never tell.
I_D
Member
Ironic that you used these words. I've always found the animation to the be the weakest part of Avatar.
The textures are nice and the lighting is nice, but the animation always looks a bit off.
Braids are either incredibly heavy or they're made of pipe cleaners. Head-Flower has petals of super strength. Necklaces aren't affected by wind at all. Wind has no effect on her eyes or face, and she doesn't appear to have any special wind-protecting eyelids.
Tail flapping around like it has a mind of its own. Lifeless eyes that don't narrow or move to increase aim. She also has some weird feather/flower thing growing out of her right shoulder.
Eyelids don't scrunch up at all, even though the bridge of the nose indicates his whole face should be crinkled in agony. His hair also doesn't fall properly when he turns his head.
Lazily floating along before passing the tree, then sudden increase of speed to "slam" into the root. Water looks like jello in the foreground. Water speed also doesn't match the 'floating' speed or the 'slamming' speed.
It's rather telling, though, that such tiny details have to be focused on in order to see flaws. The movie is definitely the best CGI out there, but I can see why it doesn't quite look right to people.
eyes are among the hardest things to get right in CG.
getting them right requires a full understanding of lighting, and other things that are important when it comes to rendering eyes.
See the new TMNT movie as a reference for how not to do eyes.
ratcliffja
Member
Yeah all of Avatar looked like crap to me. Different strokes I guess. It was enough to convince me to never watch a 3D movie in theaters again.
Cow Mengde
Banned
WTF!? I never knew there was a Marsupilami movie until today as well!!!
Children of man, besides the obvious cg baby most people didn't notice just how much cg that movie had in it.
edit- I meant when it was wrapped in the blanket. The child birth scene was super convincing.
Heres an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xGWF9K8JQ
edit- I meant when it was wrapped in the blanket. The child birth scene was super convincing.
Heres an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xGWF9K8JQ
SillyEskimo
Member
I loved the Rogers stuff in Cpt America. It's fascinating.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
ILM is more than capable to pull it off (especially considering they've been using/iterating/improving upon a lot of the same tech for Davy Jones/Rango/Hulk/etc for TMNT) and things could very well improve in the final renders, but also you have to keep it mind that ultimately it's up to the director/producer/studio to art direct and give final approval on how something looks.
While I also think that the water looks a little too much like jello I think it's kind of hard to tell how a big and long creature like this would float in real water. Pandora also has only 0.8 of earth's gravity which would probably affect water physics as well.
Lazily floating along before passing the tree, then sudden increase of speed to "slam" into the root. Water looks like jello in the foreground. Water speed also doesn't match the 'floating' speed or the 'slamming' speed.
So I guess you agree with me when I'm saying this:
Semi-related, but when are people going to start widely acknowledging that Avatar is one of Cameron's lesser films. It was only that initial wow-factor that held it up in esteem.
I don't think Starship Troopers looks terribly realistic, but for some reason I really like the look of CGI from this era (early, mid-90s).
NaughtyCalibur
Member
I was actually try to be nice there and stop a little short of comparing it to computer-animated productions aimed towards children. It just looks CG all of the time to me. The actual animation is quite good, but I agree that it does have a few flaws in places.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Ironic that you used these words. I've always found the animation to the be the weakest part of Avatar.
The textures are nice and the lighting is nice, but the animation always looks a bit off.
Braids are either incredibly heavy or they're made of pipe cleaners. Head-Flower has petals of super strength. Necklaces aren't affected by wind at all. Wind has no effect on her eyes or face, and she doesn't appear to have any special wind-protecting eyelids.
Tail flapping around like it has a mind of its own. Lifeless eyes that don't narrow or move to increase aim. She also has some weird feather/flower thing growing out of her right shoulder.
Eyelids don't scrunch up at all, even though the bridge of the nose indicates his whole face should be crinkled in agony. His hair also doesn't fall properly when he turns his head.
Lazily floating along before passing the tree, then sudden increase of speed to "slam" into the root. Water looks like jello in the foreground. Water speed also doesn't match the 'floating' speed or the 'slamming' speed.
It's rather telling, though, that such tiny details have to be focused on in order to see flaws. The movie is definitely the best CGI out there, but I can see why it doesn't quite look right to people.
This is a much nerdier version of the classic sharp knees post.
Black Rambo
Banned
Remember the intro scene to Thor: The Dark World? The Dark Elf fight? Aside from maybe 3 actors the entire scene was CGI.
and it looked completely CGI. Not even a good example
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Dat sense of scale though.
I_D
Member
Meh, I like sharp knees.
Like I said, it's the best CGI ever made, to date. But when you get that close to realism, the little things tend to stand out.
Dat sense of scale though.
Like this. Those two guys' legs aren't long enough for their torsos.
When you have nice CG, the imperfections ruin the overall image.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Oh god :lol
I have studied biomechanics and some kinesiology, and fit people on custom bikes by taking all kinds of measurements, there are tons of people like that. You are really digging deep and nitpicking.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Dat sense of scale though.
It looks waxy/too smooth. Has the typical CGI look and lighting.
Avatar:
Reality
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
It looks waxy/too smooth. Has the typical CGI look and lighting.
Avatar:
Reality
1. You realize the gif is sped up, right?
2. You don't think they might use bigger diggers a sci-fi set 150 years from now?
ComputerMKII
Banned
1) I've seen the movie, thank you very much. By smooth I didn't mean the motion but the blurriness and lack of imperfections/detail.
2) What does the size have to do with anything? I was talking about the texture, colors and lighting
Scarecrow
Member
Far out. That's pretty much the only visuals in Avatar that have blown me away (suck it, Halo 3 water).
Atraveller
Banned
Since you are going to nitpick, I'm going to nitpick your nitpick.
First of all, they are flying on the backs of Ikrans, not jets, the wind is not as strong as you think.
Braids are either incredibly heavy or they're made of pipe cleaners. Head-Flower has petals of super strength. Necklaces aren't affected by wind at all. Wind has no effect on her eyes or face, and she doesn't appear to have any special wind-protecting eyelids.
Second of all, those are feathers, not flowers. Third, her necklace is tightly strapped to her neck, like the radio, and the Na'Vi people are tall and slender with little body fat, so it's natural that her face don't go "flap flap" in the wind.
Why do assume her tail moved like it's got a mind of its own? Maybe she moved it like that in anticipation? And I've been to archery lessons, I don't have to narrow my eyes to get the shot in such a close range, let alone her. The feather was resting on her arm and it slipped off, look more carefully.
Tail flapping around like it has a mind of its own. Lifeless eyes that don't narrow or move to increase aim. She also has some weird feather/flower thing growing out of her right shoulder.
How do you know how should their bodies work? They are aliens! And it's a thick braid.
Eyelids don't scrunch up at all, even though the bridge of the nose indicates his whole face should be crinkled in agony. His hair also doesn't fall properly when he turns his head.
I've been watching the gif for more than 30 times, I still don't see the increase of speed you spoke of. Gravity is weaker on Pandora, perhaps that's why it looked different. And Jake's speed in the river is dependent on the size of the surface area he's getting the push from the water flow, doesn't mean he has to move in the same speed as the water flow.
Lazily floating along before passing the tree, then sudden increase of speed to "slam" into the root. Water looks like jello in the foreground. Water speed also doesn't match the 'floating' speed or the 'slamming' speed.
The best pieces of CGI I've seen thus far are Davy Jones, the Blue Umbrella Pixar short, and honestly, the Blizzard cinematic trailers. Avatar's obviously spectacular, but the animation inconsistencies and "uncanny valley" effects get to me.
...Wait, who was talking about the size?
...Wait, who was talking about the size?
plantedunicorn
Member
Zodiac looks great and if I didn't know better I would say Davy Jones is actually a real creature in existence. It still impresses me to this day. Especially the little movements on his face and when he's breathing.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
The funny thing is that in that Neytiri gif, she DOES have translucent protectors for her eyes. She's just not put them down because she's not ready to start dive-bombing yet.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It looks waxy/too smooth. Has the typical CGI look and lighting.
Avatar:
Reality
Are you kidding me here? We aren't looking at one through clouds of dust and smoke because it isn't being used.
OrangeJulius
Member
For my money Zodiac will always be the gold standard for CGI that wasn't readily apparent as CGI. Granted I've not seen a blu ray, but it does what CGI should do, complement the scene instead of being the scene.
Well...you never said realistic =P
http://gizmodo.com/this-amazing-3d-render-lets-you-dive-into-a-medieval-ba-1548660882
- Status