FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9      Non-Film Score Discussion: CGI Burnout    FIRST   PRIOR   2 3 4 5 6    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jul 21, 2015 - 3:31 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah!    Posted:   Jul 21, 2015 - 3:33 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) There's lots of issues going on. We used to get one or two major sci fi films every decade. The designs were often creative and had an esthetic all their own. 2001, Star Trek, Star Wars, Logan's Run all had a unique canvas. There are so many sci fi films, comics, television shows, and video games the well has run dry. How many ways can you design a spaceship or an alien and make it look interesting and unique? This is compounded by one shoe fits all CGI where regardless if it's good CGI or bad CGI it all looks like it was created by the same artist.    Posted:   Jul 21, 2015 - 3:39 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah! I'm not sure which post your referring to, but I would argue I don't watch enough porn.    Posted:   Jul 21, 2015 - 3:43 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah! I'm not sure which post your referring to, but I would argue I don't watch enough porn. the one that includes the following words: bukakke splooge ejaculate need i continue....? brm    Posted:   Jul 21, 2015 - 3:46 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah! I'm not sure which post your referring to, but I would argue I don't watch enough porn. the one that includes the following words: bukakke splooge ejaculate need i continue....? brm You need glasses son. Ive never used any of those words in any of my comments. Edit: Ah now I get it. I was quoting someone else.    Posted:   Jul 22, 2015 - 1:30 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah! I'm not sure which post your referring to, but I would argue I don't watch enough porn. the one that includes the following words: bukakke splooge ejaculate need i continue....? brm You need glasses son. Ive never used any of those words in any of my comments. and Donald trump never said Mexican immigrants are "drug dealers and rapists"    Posted:   Jul 22, 2015 - 2:08 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) After reading Solium's informative post i have come to a conclusion: he watches way too much porn! ahahahahahahahhah! I'm not sure which post your referring to, but I would argue I don't watch enough porn. the one that includes the following words: bukakke splooge ejaculate need i continue....? brm You need glasses son. Ive never used any of those words in any of my comments. and Donald trump never said Mexican immigrants are "drug dealers and rapists" Well I took your initial comment in jest. Then I realized you misread my post and explained your confusion. Then you intentionally leave out my explanation when quoting me, so you can take another jab. I don't know what your problem is but I'm done with you. Welcome to my ignore list.    Posted:   Jul 22, 2015 - 3:24 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) i'm just havin' fun. Solium. I thought you were too b    Posted:   Jul 22, 2015 - 3:25 PM     By:   'Lenny Bruce' Marshall   (Member) i'm just havin' fun. Solium. I thought you were too b    Posted:   Jul 27, 2015 - 1:34 PM     By:   Sir David of Garland   (Member) Seems apropos: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/ Oh, thank you Mastadge, for that article. It was great. I didn't agree quite with the elephant moment, but the bridge I agree was crappy.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 7:53 AM     By:   mastadge   (Member)    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 8:41 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) That is fine, but FF is being ripped presently, for among other things, bad effects, and those are CGI. The producers have overplayed the CG hand, it is very simple, in small amounts it works, but now almost every scene in a genre picture has some CG tinkering, most of the backgrounds, ships and stunt scenes are loaded with effects - and the seams show.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 9:12 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) A lot of truth in that video. I think we excuse weaker effects if the story and characters are strong. Also when they do cars and planes right we are completely fooled. Part of it maybe because we figured they didn't need CGI for the shot so our brains registers it as real. If you look at that split screen from Mad Max, look how wonderfully vibrant the color is on the left. (The real shot) then look how they dulled down the color on the right side after they added the effects. It's depressing. So maybe it was a good effect and I was fooled in thinking it was a real canyon, but the final shot is not as good as what the camera original recorded. This is the needless tinkering of CGI.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 12:56 PM     By:   CinemaScope   (Member) If you look at that split screen from Mad Max, look how wonderfully vibrant the color is on the left. (The real shot) then look how they dulled down the color on the right side after they added the effects. It's depressing. So maybe it was a good effect and I was fooled in thinking it was a real canyon, but the final shot is not as good as what the camera original recorded. This is the needless tinkering of CGI. That's nothing to do with CGI, that's digital grading, they nearly always seem to tweak the colour down, but things have improved. Ten years ago so many films seemed closer to b/w than colour, movies look so much better now, I think they're getting the hang of it.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 1:48 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) If you look at that split screen from Mad Max, look how wonderfully vibrant the color is on the left. (The real shot) then look how they dulled down the color on the right side after they added the effects. It's depressing. So maybe it was a good effect and I was fooled in thinking it was a real canyon, but the final shot is not as good as what the camera original recorded. This is the needless tinkering of CGI. That's nothing to do with CGI, that's digital grading, they nearly always seem to tweak the colour down, but things have improved. Ten years ago so many films seemed closer to b/w than colour, movies look so much better now, I think they're getting the hang of it. My bad for saying "CGI", I just meant digital manipulation in post production. But I completely disagree with your assessment films look better today. Batman V Superman looks over saturated and color tinted. Netflix's Daredevil video quality looks like a tenth generation bootleg from a VHS.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 2:33 PM     By:   Ado   (Member) Love this bit from http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-josh-tranks-fantastic-four-starring-miles-teller-kate-mara-jamie-bell-and-michael-b-jordan-20150805 "The special effects are often lousy in "Fantastic Four," with poorly rendered CGI backdrops that make the fact that the actors are all standing on a soundstage all the more apparent, and this is particularly glaring during the climax." Of course there are tons of others movies with glaringly obvious actors standing in front of green screens that were financially successful - dare I say it, Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain American 2. Guys in make up and plastic superhero suits standing in front of walls - people loved it. For most movie goers, I sadly think it makes little difference, the level of tolerance for crap visual effects is pretty high.    Posted:   Aug 6, 2015 - 8:30 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) For most movie goers, I sadly think it makes little difference, the level of tolerance for crap visual effects is pretty high. Sadly true.    Posted:   Dec 12, 2015 - 5:54 PM     By:   Sir David of Garland   (Member) The title sequence of SUPERMAN RETURNS was likely all CGI and I was all, "Meh." The title sequence of SUPERMAN (1978) was a variety of techniques, and I was dazzled. (Maybe being 15 years old helped.)    Posted:   Dec 12, 2015 - 6:05 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) The title sequence of SUPERMAN RETURNS was likely all CGI and I was all, "Meh." The title sequence of SUPERMAN (1978) was a variety of techniques, and I was dazzled. (Maybe being 15 years old helped.) The only effect in the opening of SUPERMAN (1978) I didn't like was when they obviously photographed a sparkler. http://media.giphy.com/media/96CHcrGlHitxe/giphy.gif    Posted:   Dec 12, 2015 - 7:07 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) Solium wrote: The only effect in the opening of SUPERMAN (1978) I didn't like was when they obviously photographed a sparkler. Visual effects, whether computer generated or some other technique, is hit-or-miss like any other art. The VFX team for George Pal's 1953 THE WAR OF THE WORLDS used a metal grinder to produce the spitting heat ray, which I thought looked fantastic. The animated, green blobs from the secondary guns were less compelling. True brilliance was the sound effect for the heat ray: the starting motor from a truck. The real fault with the SUPERMAN "sparkler" was that it was so easily recognizable as a sparkler. There were many other pyrotechnic effects that passed muster, and even some non-descript shapes most likely executed in the same fashion as the light show at the end of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. (The 2001 light show was slit-scanned art, chemical "lava lamp" effects, and even underwater footage all posterized, pushed for high contrast and back-lit in various ways.)     Non-Film Score Discussion: CGI Burnout    << < 2 3 4 5 6  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.