|
I was depressed as a result of seeing Avatar, but not because it was pretty.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Cat loses fight with bee:
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Hey cat That's a nice nose For a clown to wear
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Ah cha cha cha cha!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I thought so too until I saw the high def blu-ray poo poo at a friend's place, it might have just been the settings on the TV but I thought it all looked like rubber or clay and just stood out painfully bad. But maybe I'm just crazy. Its because the loving 3d bullshit hides a lot of the bad graphics. Avatar looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I thought so too until I saw the high def blu-ray poo poo at a friend's place, it might have just been the settings on the TV but I thought it all looked like rubber or clay and just stood out painfully bad. But maybe I'm just crazy. It's not just you. It's because any fully CGI effect that isn't environmental detail or touching up an existing prop inevitably looks like weird plastic clay. Why exactly I couldn't tell you, but it's held very true and makes a lot of early 00s movies a bit of a special effects dead zone. Even Lord of the Rings only barely scrapes by at times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Even Lord of the Rings only barely scrapes by at times. I remember back when the Lord of the Rings movies first got released on Blu-ray. I was at a friends place with some buddies and another one came by and said "Check this guys! Lord of the Rings Trilogy on Blu-ray!". We we're like "Pop this fucker in to see what it looks like!" and skipped to the balrog fight scene in the first movie and were massively disappointed because you could clearly see, that it was just a dude standing in a green screen environment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Polaron posted:People whining about CGI don't know what they're talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24 It was that very same video (already posted further up the page than your post) that caused the argument in the first place. D C posted:Its because the loving 3d bullshit hides a lot of the bad graphics. Avatar looks like poo poo. This. It looks a lot clearer and computer generated when it's not viewed through 3D glasses which dim out a lot of the crap. It's like playing a game with anti-aliasing disabled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
UntunedGuitar47 posted:I remember back when the Lord of the Rings movies first got released on Blu-ray. I was at a friends place with some buddies and another one came by and said "Check this guys! Lord of the Rings Trilogy on Blu-ray!". We we're like "Pop this fucker in to see what it looks like!" and skipped to the balrog fight scene in the first movie and were massively disappointed because you could clearly see, that it was just a dude standing in a green screen environment. And Fellowship stands up the best. By the time you get to Return of the King you've got the elephant-things and Cave Trolls out in "daylight", and you really can't ignore the imperfections no matter how hard you try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Polaron posted:People whining about CGI don't know what they're talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24 Garbage video cherry picking the most subtle uses of CGI ever, completely ignoring how lovely that The Thing remakes looked when they did it all on CGI instead of practical effects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Yeah but high schoolers love it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
I can understand if they decide to go with CGI first, but going with practical effects first, and then deciding to cover them up with CGI because "It looks like those vidja-games kids like." is mind-boggling. It's not like young people would watch the movie, see practical effects and go "What is happening?! My mind can't parse these images on screen! If only the effects looked more like Halo!" Ever more proof that hollywood execs are some of the smartest people around when it comes to making money, but also some of the dumbest, most out of touch people out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's not just you. It's because any fully CGI effect that isn't environmental detail or touching up an existing prop inevitably looks like weird plastic clay. Why exactly I couldn't tell you, but it's held very true and makes a lot of early 00s movies a bit of a special effects dead zone. Even Lord of the Rings only barely scrapes by at times. I hate that I sound like some elitist snob or something when I complain about this, but I agree 100% and often find myself worrying that like, maybe something's weird about my eyes that it bugs me so much and I'm missing something cool about the way it looks or something. Like, seriously if it's not used as a touch up, it feels like it's just a cartoon. My suspension of disbelief is such that I can handle that, but don't tell me Avengers 2 is such peak special effects, when half the time it feels like I'm watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Make a loving thread for it you boring idiots.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
E: nm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:That's not necessarily a hospital. The guy is trading a scythe for the symbol of commerce and negotiation. It's a relief on the Fulton County Health department in Atlanta, GA. Right across the street from Grady hospital, probably the sickest place in the US. They need the inspiring art because they sure as gently caress aren't getting the state funding they need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Polaron posted:People whining about CGI don't know what they're talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24 I can't remember the last time I was really wowed by CGI. Good practical effects still blow me out of the water every time though. They're just so much more satisfying to watch. It's like I really don't get impressed with how many individual people some computer program can render during a massive scene. Too much CGI just feels less real and really takes away from the immersion of the movie in my opinion. Content: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I hate that I sound like some elitist snob or something when I complain about this, but I agree 100% and often find myself worrying that like, maybe something's weird about my eyes that it bugs me so much and I'm missing something cool about the way it looks or something. Like, seriously if it's not used as a touch up, it feels like it's just a cartoon. My suspension of disbelief is such that I can handle that, but don't tell me Avengers 2 is such peak special effects, when half the time it feels like I'm watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit... It's uncanny valley stuff and it's pretty well known. It goes into the "painted statue" thing as CGI can't quite get reality. In the real world most stuff is somewhat transparent so you aren't just seeing the top layer. Stuff like skin especially so; the color you see in skin is more than just skin cells. The cells themselves are almost transparent and pretty white. The color of skin comes from melanin, blood, and other such things because skin is somewhat transparent. This is why CGI people look off somehow. They'll be the right color but the effect is different because of how that color is arrived at. Same goes for, well, everything really. It's also in how things move. Stuff like cloth is absurdly difficult to actually animate properly and no movie has an infinite budget. There are limits on how much time and money can be spent so corners get cut. Plus computers are nowhere near the point where they can simulate reality at that fine of detail anyway. It looks just wrong enough for your brain to go "this is not real but it is trying to be." Which is why stuff like Who Frame Roger Rabbit? actually worked. It wasn't even trying to be real. It was like "hey this is a cartoon and it can interact with the real world." Well done cartoon CGI can be impressive as hell and good animation is spectacular but, well, Americans want pretty faces interacting with things that explode apparently and it's easier to do American action movies with CGI. For better or for worse it costs less to burn a city down in a computer than it does to do it for real. Easier to control it, too. Fewer actors dying of fire-related injuries. Don't have to pay for so much insurance. Is nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Good CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKnCeeAW48
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Where did you find a representation of my posting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's uncanny valley stuff and it's pretty well known. It goes into the "painted statue" thing as CGI can't quite get reality. In the real world most stuff is somewhat transparent so you aren't just seeing the top layer. Stuff like skin especially so; the color you see in skin is more than just skin cells. The cells themselves are almost transparent and pretty white. The color of skin comes from melanin, blood, and other such things because skin is somewhat transparent. This is why CGI people look off somehow. They'll be the right color but the effect is different because of how that color is arrived at. Same goes for, well, everything really. It's also in how things move. Stuff like cloth is absurdly difficult to actually animate properly and no movie has an infinite budget. There are limits on how much time and money can be spent so corners get cut. Plus computers are nowhere near the point where they can simulate reality at that fine of detail anyway. It looks just wrong enough for your brain to go "this is not real but it is trying to be." JoelJoel posted:Make a loving thread for it you boring idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
thx for the pic m8 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:And Fellowship stands up the best. By the time you get to Return of the King you've got the elephant-things and Cave Trolls out in "daylight", and you really can't ignore the imperfections no matter how hard you try. I can because I'm not a weirdo
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I've worked with cgi and the reason a lot of cgi looks bad is because a) the tools available just aren't great at animated photorealism yet. The most photoreal things I've seen have all been still renders and that's fine but as soon as that stuff gets animated and has to move around and react to different lighting and stuff it starts to look fake. The fake Arnold from the latest terminator movie is about as good as it gets afaik and it still doesn't look completely real and that's a night scene which is way easier to get away with than a day scene b) huge spread of competence during a project. One single scene can involve a bunch of people who all create different things for the scene and then they all gotta fit together perfectly. You got the riggers, the modellers, trackers, the animators, the people who set up the lighting, the guys who make the effects like explosions and smoke and then you have people who gotta make a composite out of all this poo poo and somehow make it so it looks real. You don't have one nerd sitting there infront of a computer making entire CGI scenes. There are a ton of cooks in the kitchen and to make it all work well together is extremely difficult. Those 10 SECONDS of CGI was probably worked on by a dozen different people for weeks on end I mean there's a reason CGI is so expensive and it's far from perfect yet [€dit]  Somebody has a new favorite as of 00:14 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I can because I'm not a weirdo The important thing is you feel better than someone else. Zzulu posted:I've worked with cgi and the reason a lot of cgi looks bad is because Well yeah, this is p. obvious to anyone with half a working brain. It's just classic nerd gripe poo poo. Owning up to the fact that CGI (and even practical effects!) can look like poo poo as time goes by is not the same thing as saying that the movie sucks, and noticing that the special effects aren't perfect doesn't take away from enjoying the movie because it's a loving movie none of it is real anyway and it's all essentially a lark. Enough for my part though, sorry to contributing to the derail. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
You fuckin morons are posting a lot of stupid words and nothing funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:The important thing is you feel better than someone else. Say what you will, but Jabba the Hutt does look more realistic as a puppet compared to CGI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Say what you will, but Jabba the Hutt does look more realistic as a puppet compared to CGI. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Posting fat acceptance poo poo from their Rascal scooter like this just enrages me. Fat mother- and/or father-fucker needs to lose some lard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
That's an edit so I can only imagine she's sending someone a happy birthday message from the hospital where she's getting her thyroid problems taken care of. Or maybe the original is even worse than the edit. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
The original.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:The original. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:Posting fat acceptance poo poo from their Rascal scooter like this just enrages me. Fat mother- and/or father-fucker needs to lose some lard. you are a nasty person, please get help
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Dodecalypse posted:you are a nasty person, please get help You're a fatty, please get a gym membership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
That word describes fat people yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:That word describes fat people yes. I am quite fat
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Hey, how about instead of stupid whiny bullshit we have funny pictures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:15
|
|
