Why doe Jurassic Park look better than any movie released today?
- Thread starter Xeke
- Start date
- Status
Well, you answered it pretty much yourself. Obi-wan was riding the lizard. There's nothing that ambitious in JP in terms of live-action/CG registration. And I've just discussed pterodactyls (which were shown in the JP sequels).kame-sennin said:
Understand that JP's efx holding up were also much a result of smartly working within limitations. They didn't attempt the complexity seen in modern CG heavy features.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
i watch a lot of movies these days and am really impressed at how economical and efficient the effects are
like, wow, you can tell that's not a real dinosaur, good call, that must've saved a lot of dough!
like, wow, you can tell that's not a real dinosaur, good call, that must've saved a lot of dough!
I honestly didn't think anything really looked "fake" in Avatar. Then again I had absolutely no frame of reference. I know the scenes where you have both humans and smurfs on screen it looked pretty convincing.
I think Jurassic Park looks better though. It's an easier visual sell- everybody can imagine what getting chased by a dinosaur looks like.
I think Jurassic Park looks better though. It's an easier visual sell- everybody can imagine what getting chased by a dinosaur looks like.
I'd actually agree with this, one of my childhood traumas... still kind of gives me the chills to this day because of that. The first is one of my favorite movies and this thread urges me to watch them all again, but it's sad I'm too freaked to do it alone. Was really pumped for the fourth movie as well, too bad it was cancelled or put on the back burner...
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
lawblob said:
write this man a check
we been waitin' fer you in hollywooood
VGChampion
Member
That's funny. I just got back from a party and saw the scene from the OP. Man I love this movie.
You feel this way because JP was filmed around its limitations. Modern films showcase their special effects.
When you actually look closely, the detail on the dinosaurs simply cannot compare to modern CGI. Not to mention that compositing has improved by leaps and bounds (this is what ages films the most IMO)
When you actually look closely, the detail on the dinosaurs simply cannot compare to modern CGI. Not to mention that compositing has improved by leaps and bounds (this is what ages films the most IMO)
I have serious issues with Jurassic Park, but it's refreshing seeing an action movie that uses special effects to complement the other elements rather than serving as a crutch. Unless I'm remembering wrong, there are only five or some minutes of CG dinosaurs in this whole movie, but because it's used so sparingly, there's impact every time they're on screen. Modern movie makers should learn from JP.
I think part of the reason is because the only time we've seen dinosaurs come to "life" is THROUGH CG. Everything we see with dramatizations of dinosaur times is all rendered in CG so I think a lot of people vision dinosaurs looking like that. Because of that...yes, I agree. But there's more realistic looking CG effects out there than Jurassic Park.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Spiderman 2 holds up well. Look at GI Joe, that movie already looks fake as hell.
Joel Was Right
Member
20 years old. Twenty. Name me another film that can still stand on its feet when it comes to CGI that is this old. It's quite funny how it looks better than some movies even now.
Dead Man Typing
Member
Dan said:
Blader5489 said:
Umm, yes they do. You might notice them more when they are pointed out to you but people, not knowing what they are, see them as what they are meant to be because they look great.
The problem is that in modern CGI heavy features you can pretty much tell what is CGI without even examining or thinking about it. It just looks wrong. Too shiny. Too smooth. Something is wrong and it's obvious.
I don't think anyone ever had that problem with T2.
I will say that properly done CGI looks amazing and can do things that animatronics couldn't even dream about. You can't be lazy and cheap though. You have to mix practical effects where possible with understated CGI. The key is understated. Overblown CGI always looks ridiculous. Think Matrix 1 effects versus Matrix 2 and 3. The first Matrix blows some of the bullshit in the others out of the water. They were trying to do way more and it was a mistake.
ElectricBlue187
Member
CG costs less than robots i'd imagine
wenis said:
Argh, why do people think movies aren't already in HD? hell they're higher than HD.
Jurassic Park was shot, edited, and ultimately printed on FILM, which has the equivalent to a 4K resolution. This means when they were doing those pretty CG effects, they werent working in 480p or something ridiculously low, they were working at the full resolution of the celluloid imagery to be able to reprint negatives back in 35mm form.
So, none of the cg has to be 'redone' or 'cleaned up', if anything, the master negatives would just need dust and scratch removal and some color timing.
When films were released on DVD, they did a transfer at 480p (think 720x48(0/6)) because no one thought to look ahead and make a higher res transfer, it wasn't needed.
Later on in DVD's lifespan, before HDDVD and Bluray were a twinkle in sony/toshiba's eye, companies were doing transfers at 720p and 1080p respectively, which is why some first-run blu-rays looked nothing better than upscaled DVDs.. because the DVDs were from the same source, it was largely the same image just with less data.
Stargate is a perfect example of this. The recent anniversary release is incredibly better than the original Blu release.
Matrix 10th anniversary as well, there are tons of examples.
ANYWAY, Jurassic park would definitely benefit from a brand new cleaned up transfer from the original film negatives, and no CG work would need to even be touched beyond that of color timing scenes to hold up better with reduced grain and noise as a result of new digital transfer processes.
/rant
br0ken_shad0w
Member
Mikey Jr. said:
Lost World would have been decent if the characters weren't complete idiots and their actions being borderline eco-terrorism.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Now I see where your "ignorance about dinosaurs" argument comes from.Teddman said:
- Status