|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 10:46:27 GMT -4
I should point out that most people can point out CGI in today's movies, because it still doesn't look quite "real", and the effects that wowed us in the 1970s are quite obvious to today's viewers.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 20, 2011 11:02:07 GMT -4
Yes, the 'Hollywood can make anything look real' line is painfully flawed to a huge number of people.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 20, 2011 11:11:21 GMT -4
I've seen soviet era photomanipulation. It fooled the viewer for about one microsecond. Well, of course there are examples of people who were erased from Soviet photographs. However, the quality of those photographs doesn't compare to Apollo records by a long shot, so I don't think it could be comparable. The nice thing about those Soviet era photos, from the censors point of view, is that they are one off images. The tough thing about the Apollo images is that there are dozens to hundreds from each mission that must, as a group and in their entirety, be consistent. The LM must look to be in exactly the same place in all photos of the same mission. The details that reflect the photographic equipment used must be consistent across all missions. No artistic license allowed. And no tell tale signs of how they were otherwise created. Not even artifacts that would be discoverable in the future. Tsialkovsky violated a cardinal rule of conspiracy mongering by making a claim of demonstrable personal ability to support his contention. I await the proof of this claim but will be shocked if it ever comes forward.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 20, 2011 14:04:45 GMT -4
These Soviet photos also had the advantage of being black and white, while many Apollo photos are colour.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 20, 2011 16:12:20 GMT -4
I wonder if the "burly brawl" with 100 agent Smith's in the second Matrix film would pass Tsialkovsky's "good enough" test?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 16:22:16 GMT -4
I wonder if the "burly brawl" with 100 agent Smith's in the second Matrix film would pass Tsialkovsky's "good enough" test? Yep, that one was absolutely convincing, wasn't it? ;D
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 20, 2011 16:29:24 GMT -4
It worked well enough for suspension of disbelief, but I am sure if I saw it now it would look bad. Another example is the part in the first movie where the robot thing is examining Neo when he is "reborn". The overly slick (this was just before some of the modern surface techniques really got developed) and shiny visual compared to the much more gritty and entropized special effect of the claw gripping him was striking even then.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 20, 2011 16:46:32 GMT -4
I for one can't wait until it's realistically feasible* to raytrace a scene not once, but once for each wavelength of light in the visual spectrum (at nanometer intervals, or it would take forever) recalculating the refraction for each step (based on the RI selected for the materials in the scene, with subsurface scattering based on that). Still won't look quite right of course, but it would be pretty damn close.
*And I don't even mean on a non-super-computer here. Just at all would be good.
|
|
|
Post by gtvc on Dec 20, 2011 17:18:28 GMT -4
I should point out that most people can point out CGI in today's movies, because it still doesn't look quite "real", and the effects that wowed us in the 1970s are quite obvious to today's viewers. And sometimes can make a movie bad, look the star wars prequels and some horror movies, you know the soldiers are fake, the ships look too perfect, and the acting is not good because the actors are looking a green screen, looks like a videogame, "the human brain can identify when something is not natural", look for example the "uncanny valley" in 3d animation movies, failures like polar express, final fantasy and movies which try to recreate "real humans".
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Dec 20, 2011 17:36:51 GMT -4
I think the Star Wars prequels just had poor CGI. I've seen much better from movies that predate them.
|
|
|
Post by gtvc on Dec 20, 2011 17:49:02 GMT -4
But after many viewings the cgi from these other movies looks good and real? or you start to see the faults?, some people complains today of the overuse of cgi to sell a movie.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 20, 2011 17:49:21 GMT -4
It wasn't just the CGI, it was the fact that acting to nothing is hard. 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' did an amazing job and there was still moments that said "they ain't looking at nothing."
|
|
|
Post by gtvc on Dec 20, 2011 18:03:07 GMT -4
Ok, but the main point is sooner or later your brain is going to find out something is wrong with the image, if you check the reviews of redlettermedia.com about the star wars prequels the backgrounds, the ships, the aliens, the soldiers, etc, everything looks fake, lacks humanity, and you can´t connect with that, your brain can´t, young George Lucas filmed in real studios with real uniforms, disguises, people, and you like more the old characters because they are humans maybe in disguise but humans you can see the dirt in their clothes the bad hair etc. I see Apollo pictures and movies in youtube and I don´t see nothing wrong for example, while now I can see the fake Neo and agent smith in the matrix trilogy after many viewings.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 21, 2011 0:17:28 GMT -4
These Soviet photos also had the advantage of being black and white, while many Apollo photos are colour. They also had and advantage in that anyone that knew that someone had been erased also new why and was highly motivated not to speak too loudly about the observation. In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, Party always find you!
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Dec 22, 2011 7:46:55 GMT -4
Tsialkovsky, as it seems you won't be admitting your errors, I guess you must be slaving over your CGI workstation - that one you have been using since the 60's and 70's. So how are the example images coming along?
Do you need some help? I'm actually pretty handy with photoshop, and .. well.. I suspect you might need it...
|
|