No CGI realy means Invisible CGI.
- Thread starter AJUMP23
- Start date
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Calling the new lion kings live action is such a lark.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Kevin Bacon in Hollow Man has no CGI.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Yes. Watching Blackhawk down years ago and realizing the dust was cgi was amazing.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
In a way, the same happens in photography.
Most photography awards requests the photos not to be edited, however, this really means manipulation.
You can edit all the colors and levels and remove unwanted objects or distractions, correct lens profiles, orientation or crop and so on.
If you're using CGI to basically "correct" an image (even if you have a full 1960s city in cg), its not considered CGI, which isnt accurate at all, but understandable.
The definition itself is too broad.
Most photography awards requests the photos not to be edited, however, this really means manipulation.
You can edit all the colors and levels and remove unwanted objects or distractions, correct lens profiles, orientation or crop and so on.
If you're using CGI to basically "correct" an image (even if you have a full 1960s city in cg), its not considered CGI, which isnt accurate at all, but understandable.
The definition itself is too broad.
Last edited:
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Tons of effects.This movie must then have tons of CGI, whoa!
I think there is a happy medium where CGI is used to remove safety equipment from the stunt performers, get overlaid on actual vehicles (like in TG:M) that are available to be actually filmed, and recreate structures that can't really be built.
Buuuuuut what it should NOT be used for is creating entire action sequences where people don't move like they should, the camera exists in places it physically can't, and in general the process of CG just enhances the sense of unreality. The opening battle of LOTR is a great example. Those guys getting knocked around by Sauron lift and fall in a VERY unnatural way and it makes the scene look ridiculous. Or you get that spinny camera round and round like in Black Panther so the viewer is nauseous and the cartoon nature of the action is made very apparent. TERRIBLE uses of CGI.
Go watch a CAmeron film. He keeps CGI and the virtual camera locked in as if it were a REAL camera, thus all the computer effects -feel- more real because we have been trained over DECADES of film to expect things a certain way. But then you get Michael Bay's disco ball confetti explosion transformers which pairs a twirling virtual camera with a fractal based CG robots and it all looks like a mess.
Buuuuuut what it should NOT be used for is creating entire action sequences where people don't move like they should, the camera exists in places it physically can't, and in general the process of CG just enhances the sense of unreality. The opening battle of LOTR is a great example. Those guys getting knocked around by Sauron lift and fall in a VERY unnatural way and it makes the scene look ridiculous. Or you get that spinny camera round and round like in Black Panther so the viewer is nauseous and the cartoon nature of the action is made very apparent. TERRIBLE uses of CGI.
Go watch a CAmeron film. He keeps CGI and the virtual camera locked in as if it were a REAL camera, thus all the computer effects -feel- more real because we have been trained over DECADES of film to expect things a certain way. But then you get Michael Bay's disco ball confetti explosion transformers which pairs a twirling virtual camera with a fractal based CG robots and it all looks like a mess.
March Climber
Member
Agreed about this. In-motion CGI still looks either too stiff or too fluidly animated, to the point where it either becomes jarring next to a real person or makes the real person look jarringly unreal.
The background stuff has been looking much better to the point of being indistinguishable from real life at times.
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
I guarantee in 5-8 years, it will be "no AI really means invisible AI."
Every single thing done here with traditional VFX/CGI tech will be done with AI models, and will be even less visible than before.
Every single thing done here with traditional VFX/CGI tech will be done with AI models, and will be even less visible than before.
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
Nah I prefer CGI to be used on everything 
Soodanim
Member
Haven't got round to watching yet, but CGI is one of those terms where what it technically means and what laymen consider to be CGI are two different things, and it's mostly based around the overt pieces rather than the enhancing details.
I suppose another way you could look at is that people say CGI is shit, what they really dislike is shit CGI. Who's going to criticise CGI they don't even realise is CGI?
I suppose another way you could look at is that people say CGI is shit, what they really dislike is shit CGI. Who's going to criticise CGI they don't even realise is CGI?
newtypepilot
Member
yes, the best VFX are the ones you don't notice.
However, there's still a big misconception regarding just how much VFX is used. Even when things are done practically you still need VFX to fix things. For example, Tom Cruise maybe hanging off the back of the plane in MI but he is also wearing a bunch of harnesses that have to be painted out.
The worst are filmmakers and showrunners who think they know everything but are actually idiots.
This is still highly relevant.
However, there's still a big misconception regarding just how much VFX is used. Even when things are done practically you still need VFX to fix things. For example, Tom Cruise maybe hanging off the back of the plane in MI but he is also wearing a bunch of harnesses that have to be painted out.
The worst are filmmakers and showrunners who think they know everything but are actually idiots.
This is still highly relevant.
The Fartist
Gold Member
So the equivalent of "bullshots", this time on film.
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
maaaan, forgot about that little dialogue-to-video tool. It could be so much better now with current AI.
Shaki12345
Gold Member
If you watch closely, you can actually see his bacon.
Trunx81
Member
I still don´t get it how they made Shia LaBeouf swing around with all those trained monkeys. That! was acting.
That was actually John Cena doubling for Kevin in the invisible scenes.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Once you know how the sausage is made in Hollywood...
Shaki12345
Gold Member
Kevin Bacon was naked during all the "thermal vision" shots and you can clearly see his real dong flopping around. Paul Verhoeven is that kind of director. In Starship Troopers you can also easily see Casper van Dien's dong.
This is getting uncomfortable.
FTFY
Shaki12345
Gold Member
I'm heterosexual. Trust me bro.
I've been on the ship they used, motorized below decks, all ship of the line above. It was FANTASTIC. Though Old Ironsides in Boston of course is the real deal.
I'm kinda surprised Cameron hasn't used some of that Avatar production budget to make actual walking mechs. All the gyro balance stuff we were promised after the segway came out never materialized (in mech form, I"m sure drones and whatnot use it).
Shaki12345
Gold Member
I don't like the CGI direction Cameron took. If you look back at what he did with Titanic (building a almost true to life replica of one side), you wonder what he could do with practical effects in 2025.
It's not gay if its Casper Van Dein, that man is a greek god....
Yes sir, may I have another!