Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
For a Giant Hamburger post, that's surprisingly... lucid.
Uncanny valley certainly applies to things like Beowulf. When CGI is used as a replacement for other special effects techniques, it's less of an issue.
|
can you explane Giant Hamburger ?
in most cases, I agree about CGI. I think it was Roger Ebert who said...looks real feels fake...as oposed to something like stop motion puppets that feel real (cause they are) but look fake sometimes.
in the CG Beowulf, I felt that the main monster looked nearly flat, like some flashy magazine cut outs animated like south park. overall I thought Beowulf sucked ass. I vastly prefered the live action one that came out just a bit earlier.
in movies like JP, I can precieve the surface of the CG models look smooth and the skin texture is projected on. at times I can see the texture stretch on the model and it dosn't look like actual surface relief but a flat image of texture. you know like a game ?
another thing I see in movies all the time is the CG models seem to have lighting inside their mouths as if the modelers wanted to show off all the carefull modeling they did inside there. it looks un realistic that their mouths are so well lit.
and....heh, tonns of CGI has a washed out look agenst the live action, it's undersaturated. I see that in all movies w/ CGI and it's so obvious I cant understand why someone dosn't fix it before the final render.
hair dosn't look real, motion often isn't quite right, secondary animation often left to the computers to calculate is often too smooth looking.
I really think so far it's a "king has no clothes" issue. poeple have spent tonns of money on this tecknology and they need to justify the money spent so they use it. but it's still got alot of problems or people haven't really gotten a grip on how to use it best.
the chrome T100 was fine, but what refrence to chrome people is there ?
same with the water creature in Abyss.
it's when I see dino's in the new King Kong (barf o rama) or JP or some of LOTR series I think it falls apart.
granted I'm 46 and I grew up on Stop Motion. but honestly I don't think some of my observations are just bias and "glory days" talk.
say the first Alien movie... when the face hugger first shows up as the egg is opening, fantastic !! honestly the only time I've ever jumped with fear in a movie. then, the CG huggers in the first AVP ? when they slo mo fly through the air and grab people... not real looking at all.
I took a course in Softimage for about 6-8 months. I learned how to model texture animate and build lighting. I can say I've played with it a lot and XSI some too. I know the power is in there, at least for the lighting and texture problems. but most people don't seem to get it right yet. I also feel the computer calculates the secondary animations too smoothly...like the way hair might flow in the wind or as a character runns or walks along.
looks real, feels fake is the best comment I've herd on it.
when it comes to 100% CGI cartoons, well, there's no live action in them to make the CGI look off so I spose they'r fine aside from the generic character designs...is there only one character designer in the world of CGI toons ? to me, the Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Monster House...they all seem to have the same person doing the modeling or at least some ridged style they adhere too.
I didn't care for the first Hulk CGI movie but this new one I have higher hopes for. Ed Norton is shurly a better actor and I like the design of Abomination even though he's not in line with the original comic virsion. I'll definatly rent it.