Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Alien or Aliens ?

Author
Message
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 12th Jun 2012 21:19
Link
Quote: "the imperfections that come with it."

Exactly. A great example is in that link you just posted with the building. The corners are too straight for one. For those of us who are used to living around stucco buildings the corners aren't that way - even when it's just a normal building with stucco sprayed onto the outside.
Hell, buildings in general don't have corners like that unless they're metal or something similar. You design buildings perfect but drywall and everything isn't perfect.
I think that's one reason I prefer models in movies. They may look bad in some ways but they look amazing in others.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 12th Jun 2012 22:28
Link
I personally don't prefer either one over the other. CGI and animatronics both played equal parts and IMO should be still used in conjunction today.
CGI almost always has imperfections... That's why we know it's CGI. My parents (let me start by saying they probably don't even know how to get to 'My Computer') can even spot when it's used. Almost anyone can spot the imperfections in CGI simply because it's not real. It's digital and fake. CGI is limited only by one's artwork and imagination yet still almost always has some sort of imperfection which is why I think animatronics still should be a part of today's films.
Animatronics itself had it's own limitations too though which is why CGI is also needed. Take Jurassic Park for instance, anytime you could see the entire dinosaur, it was generally CGI, however, the closeups were mostly animatronics. It was done this way because animatronics' movements aren't as fluid as CGI yet has a more realistic feel to it so is used for closeup shots.

So IMO, neither one is better than the other. CGI should be used for the full picture and animatronics should be used for closeup shots like was done in Jurassic Park, a movie nearly 20 years old that I consider one of the most realistic looking movies.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 12th Jun 2012 22:38
Link
Quote: "CGI and animatronics both played equal parts and IMO should be still used in conjunction today."

Well said! Give this man a carrot.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 12th Jun 2012 23:44 Edited at: 12th Jun 2012 23:44
Link
Oh my! No one has ever given me a carrot before Now I'm going to out of joy

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 00:32
Link
Here's your carrot.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Nomad Soul
Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 01:11
Link
When comparing models and animatronics I always think about the original star wars films with the new ones.

For example the scenes in Jabba's palace from Return of The Jedi look way better than the CGI characters in the new films. The characters in the original star wars films are believable whereas in the new films they look like a cartoon and ruined the experience for me.

Also I saw the 3D version of prometheus and compared with Avatar the effect was barely noticeable. I would recommend people see the 2D version and dont't have to put up with half brightness you get with cinema 3D glasses.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 01:21
Link
Quote: "Also I saw the 3D version of prometheus and compared with Avatar the effect was barely noticeable. I would recommend people see the 2D version and dont't have to put up with half brightness you get with cinema 3D glasses."

I felt the exact same. Ten minutes into the movie I didn't even realize I was watching a 3D movie. It made it even more of a let down because of movie like that should have amazing 3D.

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
JLMoondog
Moderator
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2009
Location: Paradox
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 02:09
Link
Quote: "It made it even more of a let down because of movie like that should have amazing 3D."


It was post 3D, so it's not surprising it was a let down. It's rare to see a movie with actually good post 3D as it takes more work to do then if they actually shot the film in 3D. It's all about budget I'm afraid. When I saw The Avatar in 3d it looked like puke because it was post 3D and you could tell that it was a rush job. Compared to The Phantom Menace conversion which was really good, thanks to Lucas throwing cash at ILM.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 03:39
Link
Quote: "It was post 3D, so it's not surprising it was a let down"

Unfortunately I didn't know that going into the movie, otherwise I would have paid for 2D

I>Every single one of you

Have a nice day
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
greenlig
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 14:18
Link
Meh, movies in 3D are rarely worth it. They always go for the rock-flies-out-of-screen effect, which is such a fourth wall breaker. I've avoided them mostly.

Another reason why visual effects (3D animation and whatnot) can be distinguished in films is because it isn't one studio that does the lot. More often than not, several 3D studios take a set of shots and work on them, under the VFX Supervisor. It's a lot cheaper and faster to do it this way. They all have the same look, but quality can vary. Even just subtly, we pick that up. Some movies, like Sunshine, which had really good visuals, only had the one production studio. It cost a lot more, but in the end, it looks a million bucks.

Your signature has been erased by a mod as it is far too big.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 15:30 Edited at: 13th Jun 2012 15:31
Link
Quote: "When I saw The Avatar in 3d it looked like puke because it was post 3D and you could tell that it was a rush job."


Avatar was Real 3D.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 15:39
Link
Avatar was BAD 3d though <well, the movie had nice 3d effects, but now I mean 3d-glass-thingy-effect>

it felt like it was "layered" as in, it had like 3-4 different layers to fake a 3d effect.. it was very very bad.


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
RAXMUX Games
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Dec 2009
Location: Sweden
Posted: 13th Jun 2012 16:13
Link
Quote: "It's rare to see a movie with actually good post 3D"


Wrath of the Titans had really good post 3d

Just call me Raxmux
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 14th Jun 2012 02:58 Edited at: 14th Jun 2012 04:15
Link
Just saw Prometheus and don't know what all of you are talking about with bad acting. The only silly acting was:
Warning Spoiler

But that was a script problem.

If you know where the quote at in small letters came from you're a true nerd


In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jun 2012 03:29
Link
I'd say Prometheus was awesome, well... I still feel like I want some answers on a lot of things, but it was defenitly not bad. Acting wasnt bad at all?


The result of origin.. Oh and ponies
Back to top
Profile PM
Dimis
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jun 2011
Location: Athens, Hellas
Posted: 14th Jun 2012 10:41
Link
I am a true nerd.
(0,25)

Still haven't seen Prometheus.


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout3fan
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th May 2009
Location:
Posted: 14th Jun 2012 11:07 Edited at: 14th Jun 2012 11:07
Link
Personally I thought Alien was better because of the style Ridely Scott had over the non stop big budget action James Cameron had.

Alien > Aliens

_!!!!_
,0~U -Well I do say, its been quite a fancy forum for
__-____TheZachadoodle.________________________________
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-18 11:36:14
Your offset time is: 2025-05-18 11:36:14