CGI Is Starting to Suck

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Jun 11, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SgtPepper1983

    SgtPepper1983 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    that would be editing, as well.
     
  2. King Edward

    King Edward Well-Known Member

    Location:
    USA
    Same with auto tune. People think auto tune is there to mostly fix mistakes. It's used as an artistic effect as well. In fact, like CGI, there are many instances where it is used yet you can't tell (no, you can't.). The idea that is only used to cover things up is a myth. Anyone with a true understanding of CGI and Autotune know otherwise.
     
  3. Cellar Drops

    Cellar Drops Active Member

    I would say digital color grading is the film equivalent of Auto-Tune in music. CGI is more akin to the over-reliance on synthesizers (as opposed to "real" instruments).
     
    sgtmono likes this.
  4. King Edward

    King Edward Well-Known Member

    Location:
    USA
    No.
     
  5. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I don't think CG can be simplified that way. CG can be used for the smallest of "mistake corrections" or it can be used to create entirely fictitious characters and worlds.

    I think the most eye-opening discussion of CG I ever heard as on the "Castaway" DVD. That's a movie that doesn't look like something "CG" at all, but it used tons of computer effects.

    Before that, I'd never thought about the use of CG for non-"big effects" reasons...
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  6. BradOlson

    BradOlson Country/Christian Music Maven

    While Jurrasic Park is a heavy on CGI movie, it did have a very interesting story.
     
    EdgardV likes this.
  7. SgtPepper1983

    SgtPepper1983 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    I had a similar experience while watching the making of the original Jurassic Park way back then. They showed how in a scene of T-Rex attacking the car, the car - too - was a digital effect. That completely blew my mind.
    [​IMG]
     
    erniebert and Oatsdad like this.
  8. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Yep, modern 'conventional' films (ie, non fantasy/superhero/scifi) with half decent budgets, are filled to the gills with invisible CGI.
     
  9. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Well, speaking as a digital colorist (at least for the larger part of my job), I would disagree in that digital color correction is just a tool. We can use digital color correction to dig out a beautiful, natural look for a show, or it can be misused to create an over-the-top, weird, "affected" kind of look. Every movie and TV show made in the last 20 years has gone through digital color correction by the time you see it at home, and it's just a weapon in the hand of a skilled technician. What we can't control is the degree of good or bad taste from the filmmakers.

    The problem with comparing color correction to Antares Auto-Tune (or any number of automatic pitch-correcting systems) is that Auto-Tune is frequently used as a bandaid to cover up a sloppy vocal performance. In that respect, it's presenting a false version of what's really there. Color correction is just a process -- more like a series of processes -- and you can use it as a scalpel to surgically sculpt out very beautiful natural results, or you can use it like an axe to bludgeon the image in extreme directions. And sometimes it's a combination of the two. The filmmakers are really the people making the decisions; the colorist can only make tactful suggestions.

    There are a lot of weird modern trends that have kind of gotten embedded in modern filmmaking, and some of these trends are annoying. An old pal of mine is incredibly sensitive to speed changes (especially speed ramps, like slow down/speed up moments in fight scenes), because they take him out of the film. As with everything, those don't bother me except when they get overused and relied on too much.
     
    eddiel and Old Rusty like this.
  10. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    BTW, here's a nice breakdown of several dozen visual effects shots from the recent blockbuster Deadpool. This would be an example of a heavy, heavy VFX film where I think they were successfully able to integrate the CGI into the live action so that it's not too "CG-y."



    Even I was taken aback by how much stuff was totally CGI in this show: cars, buildings, streets, bridges, skies, you name it. This is remarkably good work, and it's a good example of stuff that simply couldn't be shot in the real world, recreated in computers. There is a veneer of artificiality on some of the shots, but I can kick in a little suspension of disbelief to buy into it. The car wreck and the shot with 3 guys killed with one bullet were particular highlights for me.
     
    Stormrider77 and Purple Jim like this.
  11. fitzysbuna

    fitzysbuna Senior Member

    Location:
    Australia
    I have to have a suspension of belief watching any of the comic movies ! otherwise I would not enjoy them
     
  12. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think for every movie I've seen in the past 55 years or so, I've had to have a degree of suspension of disbelief. So that would count for all of them.
     
    fitzysbuna likes this.
  13. Matt Richardson

    Matt Richardson Forum Resident

    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    I know I,m probably in the minority, but my rule of thumb is the less need for cgi, the better and more meaningful the film. I often wonder just how better or worse the Exorsist would be if it were made today with the availability for CGI . I seem to remember they had to really chill the set to get the breath effects to show how cold the room became with the demon possession. Today those breath effects could all be done with CGI. Would the actors really seem as cold? Would the mechanical process of elevating Regan from her bed seem as weird and Erie if it were done digitally? I tend to think not. But who knows maybe it would be a better film? In the end I think it will only get worse because Hollywood now is only interested in the blockbuster action movies to make their money. These films are essentially video games with some stars thrown in for marketing effect. The real star is the SE team.
     
  14. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    It's simple. CGI is a tool. If applied appropriately, it will enhance a film greatly. If applied inappropriately, it will drag the film down to ridicule. It's not an absolute.
     
    mj_patrick likes this.
  15. Exactly. People don't understand that color-correction or timing is essential just to get shots to match perfectly. It was done back in the film/chemical era with post-production lab work on every movie & TV show ever made, so it's nothing new.
     
  16. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    No. Realistic breath is one of many things they still can't do convincingly. It's very obvious that it's just something superimposed in the foreground and pasted in. As one example, David Fincher tried this in the huge hit The Social Network, and quite a few critics remarked how bad the "winter" scenes looked when the actors were exhaling clouds of CG breath.

    Note that Billy Friedkin did use CGI to augment the original Exorcist with the infamous "spider sequence," where Megan crawls down the stairs on all four arms & legs like a spider. And I think he tweaked a half-dozen other shots in very tiny ways. I think well-done CGI can work very well, and I said above that Deadpool is a good example of a film where the VFX were always in service of the story and were generally quite believable.
     
  17. Jim G.

    Jim G. Geezer with a nice stereo!

    CGI is kind of like stereo was early. I remember stereo records of trains going by, race cars, and the like. The logic was, that if a train sounded so real, imagine how good the music will sound.
     
  18. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I never thought CGI breath, even obviously fake breath, would be so distracting until I saw this film (which is otherwise pretty awful and boring anyway), from 2009:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    CGI breath winds up looking like this:



    Even Jim Cameron, who is extremely hip when it comes to VFX, opted to just use real breath (but superimposed) in the death scene for Titanic. And in looking at it, it's not very effective. CGI breath looks terrible. It's hard to beat the real thing, because every human alive -- in most of the Western world -- knows exactly what cold air does to breath.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  20. Drifter

    Drifter AAD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    Looks more like cigarette smoke.
     
    EdgardV likes this.
  21. EdgardV

    EdgardV ®

    Location:
    USA
    My perception tells me that there is something else about the scene that also doesn't help make the breath believable.

    It could have something to do with the lighting, or the look of the actor's skin, or just the acting may be off.

    But in my experience, it is very rare to have thunder when it is cold enough to see your breath.

    Regardless, I agree with Drifter that the CGI looks like cigarette smoke.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
  22. proudy

    proudy Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    It never looked good to me. Ever.

    "But proudy, when it's used well you don't even notice it, and..!"

    When it's used well--for backgrounds and stuff--it's just a new type of bluescreen, a technique that's been around forever. But a big CGI model creature is never going to beat a physical prop the actors can react to and interact with. The human eye can just tell.
     
  23. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    CGI in films has been around since around 1976 (Futureworld), and before, but only as wire-frame models or CG text. Other notables included Looker (1981), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Tron (1982). The latter two films really sparked the 3D rendering revolution which has been developing ever since. So, today we're well beyond the 'stereo' equivalent days.

    Not even cigarette smoke, The problem is that the modeling isn't quite right. You can see the same type of problem in many CGI explosions which have lots of billowing smoke. The smoke looks fake because it's modeled with a particle-based system which tends to make the smoke particles look 'thick' or atomized (to save rendering times/costs). They're not fine enough and numerous enough to be able to linger in the air and weave into intricate patterns in the air stream.
     
  24. Drifter

    Drifter AAD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    That's why I said "Looks more like cigarette smoke." :) It looks more like cigarette smoke than frosty breath. I agree with your points. :agree:
     
  25. Matt Richardson

    Matt Richardson Forum Resident

    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    In this clip the CGI breath lingers too long. If it would disappear faster it would look more realistic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine