brandonh83
Banned
Exposes all the think they know it all CG professionals on the forums.
And not just when it comes to CG either.
Exposes all the think they know it all CG professionals on the forums.
I'm always vaguely amused by the practical vs. CGI silliness. Like.. if it works, it works. Why does it matter if it's a prop or a pixel? Good effects are timeless, regardless of source.
I always bring this up but nobody has any idea of which things are practical or cgi. Every time someone is like "this CGI is horrible" someone posts a set picture showing the practical effects.
People like complaining about things
Yeah, but CGI in particular draws a lot of flack around here for some reason. It's vaguely bizarre, considering that GAF is (in theory) a gaming forum, a medium which consists of literally nothing but computer generated images, lol.
What's annoying are the complaints about the shots that actually look fine.
I always bring this up but nobody has any idea of which things are practical or cgi. Every time someone is like "this CGI is horrible" someone posts a set picture showing the practical effects.
Yeah, but CGI in particular draws a lot of flack around here for some reason. It's vaguely bizarre, considering that GAF is (in theory) a gaming forum, a medium which consists of literally nothing but computer generated images, lol.
So because the skin tone of one Stormtrooper is a tiny bit darker than the skin tone of the clones (the only other Stormtroopers we've seen take off their costumes), the movie is instantly super interesting?
...
Damnit, this is why I usually stay out of these threads. Can't tell who's being serious or just trolling given my prior stint at ILM. :/
I'm still laughing at the dude saying the robot is real because I honestly don't know if he is trolling or not.
It looks CGI to me.
Looks good but I can tell it's CGI.
I'm always vaguely amused by the practical vs. CGI silliness. Like.. if it works, it works. Why does it matter if it's a prop or a pixel? Good effects are timeless, regardless of source.
i don't think the kids would have screamed as convincingly if the T-Rex head had been included in Post.
Yeah, but CGI in particular draws a lot of flack around here for some reason. It's vaguely bizarre, considering that GAF is (in theory) a gaming forum, a medium which consists of literally nothing but computer generated images, lol.
I was actually more shocked by how many people didn't think it was practical.
What's stopping BB from also being a toolbox and or repair bot? Like a literal rolling toolbox slash space swiss army knife for Rey?But what is BB-8's Purpose? R2, is an automated Starship Repair Toolbox, 3PO is a Translator and Protocol droid and is inoffensively humanoid in form. What practical design purpose is a ball with a head?
What's stopping BB from also being a toolbox and or repair bot?
Well I mean, my IRL toolbox barely goes above my ankle. It also can't move on its own and follow me around because it is just a box.The functional design, and maybe size. I think BB isn't go to be any taller than your knee cap.
But what is BB-8's Purpose? R2, is an automated Starship Repair Toolbox, 3PO is a Translator and Protocol droid and is inoffensively humanoid in form. What practical design purpose is a ball with a head?
Hahahaha the ILM CV wangling.absolutely
sensational
SameI was actually more shocked by how many people didn't think it was practical.
This guy has got to make a return. With a new power coupling!Ben Quadinaros
But what is BB-8's Purpose? R2, is an automated Starship Repair Toolbox, 3PO is a Translator and Protocol droid and is inoffensively humanoid in form. What practical design purpose is a ball with a head?
even good CGI has its limits, though. Sure, it'll have the same (if not better) visual impact to the audience. But actors who have to play in CG sets along CGI characters are often having a harder time than those in practically built sets. - and this will also be noticeable to the Audience.
Ewan McGregor didn't only once "complain" how hard it is to act if everything around you is just green and people tell you to imagine some long-ass-necked Kamino dude.
Actors need to be able to build some sort of relationship to everything / everyone they act with / along. This is why Serkis as Gollum works great, because apart from the weird froggy eyes, Serkis IS Gollum on set.
Similarly, if there's an actual robot rolling alongside you, you build some sort of relationship. People even project some sort of personality into their Roombas.
This is especially important when working with kids actors, imho.
i don't think the kids would have screamed as convincingly if the T-Rex head had been included in Post.
Little Drew Barrymore even believed E.T. to be a real person which made her genuinely cry during the scenes that he was about to die.
Similarly, the entire film was shot chronologically - when E.T. leaves them, the kids are all genuinely sad, because they had built a relationship to the puppet / the character.
Don't think CGI can ever evoke that much emotion from a person.
Lmao told you people that droid was not CGI. Proved Gaf wrong again including some alleged "former ILM employees".
How the heck does it work? Is the head on a rail? Or is it magnetically attached to the ball, or a ring inside a plastic shell?
Seriously. I believe it is real if Hamill so claims but man... i can't imagine how it works.
This all just shows you how far CGI has become. Can't even tell what's real or not anymore.
We were there a long time ago...
Hey remember how people said the ball droid (now known as BB-8) was terrible or obvious CGI?
Mark Hamill, in an interview:
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
I didn't know till recently that the car in the scene below was CGI as well. I never realized thatWe were there a long time ago...
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.
the ball droid in the gif is clearly not done without cgi.
maybe there is a real one, but this is done with the help of cgi.