Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 01:39:00 AM
522917 Posts in 39404 Topics by 4876 Members
Latest Member: Dalek1
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Interesting CGI vs Practical effects article « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Interesting CGI vs Practical effects article  (Read 480 times)
Ed, Ego and Superego
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 263
Posts: 2727



« on: June 03, 2013, 03:02:04 PM »

Lightwieght, but if you have five minutes good read
Logged

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
fulci420
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 25
Posts: 390


« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2013, 03:33:08 PM »

you didn't post the article
Logged
Ed, Ego and Superego
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 263
Posts: 2727



« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2013, 12:24:19 PM »

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/03/long-live-real-fake-fx.html

Wierd... Here you go
Logged

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Jack
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 997
Posts: 9031



« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2013, 12:41:27 PM »

"As research continues and solutions and awareness develop," he said, "CG will become indistinguishable from actual photography."

They were saying that 20 years ago.  And they'll probably be saying that 20 years from now.
Logged

Take notes. This is high quality posting here.
Chainsaw midget
Just Another Guy
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 233
Posts: 1761



« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2013, 01:12:06 PM »

Quote
"As research continues and solutions and awareness develop," he said, "CG will become indistinguishable from actual photography."
People say that, but even then, it's only talking about the top of the line stuff. 

Not everyone has the talent of the budget to be top of the line.  It's true for practical effects and it's true for digital effects. 

The difference is, when dealing with practical effects, even if it's bottom of the barrel low-quality stuff, it still has a reality to it that CG doesn't.   
Logged

Terms & Conditions:  By reading this signature, you, the reader willfully acknowledge that you owe me a dollar.
Vaporman87
Purveyor of relief to the nostalgia bug
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 5
Posts: 50


Overlord of RetroDaze


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2013, 01:14:56 PM »

They were saying that 20 years ago.  And they'll probably be saying that 20 years from now.

Agreed. As advanced as CG is nowadays, it is still easily distinguishable by most moviegoers. I think a lot of the problem is the high definition of film in this age. Perhaps if we were still watching films on antiquated screens or tube televisions with low resolutions, the CG would blend in better with reality. But the effects companies seem incapable at present of rendering the models to exactly match that of the characters or backgrounds filmed on set. Not to mention the fact that the subtle movements of a living breathing body are so hard to replicate. I think it was probably best achieved in King Kong.
Logged

All Your Memories Are Belong To Us.   www.retro-daze.com
Pacman000
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 38
Posts: 522


« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2013, 07:53:54 PM »

Often CGI looks more like a painting than anything real, but something makes me wonder if this is caused by my expectations:

Once the movie theater had trailors for some of ABC's up-coming TV series.  I thought they were on real sets, but when they cut to a behind-the-scenes shot, most of the backgrounds were green.  Now, it's hard to see errors in a short shot, and the backgrounds were often in soft focus, but I must give the CG folks credit; they tricked me.   I know that a monster isn't really there, but an everyday object?  I don't know if I can always tell the difference anymore.  Bluesad

Also, the space ships in Star Wars were not done in stop motion.
Logged
Jack
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 997
Posts: 9031



« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2013, 06:42:18 AM »

They were saying that 20 years ago.  And they'll probably be saying that 20 years from now.

Agreed. As advanced as CG is nowadays, it is still easily distinguishable by most moviegoers. I think a lot of the problem is the high definition of film in this age. Perhaps if we were still watching films on antiquated screens or tube televisions with low resolutions, the CG would blend in better with reality. But the effects companies seem incapable at present of rendering the models to exactly match that of the characters or backgrounds filmed on set. Not to mention the fact that the subtle movements of a living breathing body are so hard to replicate. I think it was probably best achieved in King Kong.

Yeah there's just a million little things that the human eye picks up on - the subtleties of movement, the shadows, the brightness of the colors and the contrast between them depending on the specific lighting conditions, etc.  If something isn't perfect it sticks out like a sore thumb.  And even if they do a great job with all of that, the physics are usually unrealistic.  They like to use CGI for car chases and that sort of thing, but it seems that instead of studying video of real cars and trying to replicate that, they just try to make it look "cool" and it usually ends up making me chuckle.  Or some giant dragon with bulletproof armor floating gracefully in midair, even though it would fall out of the sky like a rock if it didn't keep its wings flapping furiously at all times.

I agree with Pacman000 about everyday objects though.  I was listening to the director's commentary track on some movie and he was pointing out a lot of things that were CGI that I never would have noticed.  For instance they dug a pit that was 3 feet deep, but then they hit ground water and couldn't go any farther.  So they used CGI to make the pit 10 feet deep, and that blended in absolutely seamlessly.  And a whole bunch of other stuff like that as well.
Logged

Take notes. This is high quality posting here.
Torgo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 530
Posts: 5268



« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2013, 11:56:08 AM »

I still stand by the notion that special effects should always be attempted by any practical way first. Then, and only then, once no practical method can successfully accomplish the effect in question should CGI be implemented.   
Logged

"There is no way out of here. It'll be dark soon. There is no way out of here."
Ed, Ego and Superego
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 263
Posts: 2727



« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2013, 02:08:15 PM »

The Hellboy movies went overboard (in a good way) on hiding the CGI from the practical effects.   The making of features we're really amazing to watch.   They made rubber monsters for him to hit, for example, then CGI'd to make it look cooler and move.
Logged

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Interesting CGI vs Practical effects article « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.