James stated:
>Some of the above is unnecessary in CGI, obviously. >That doesn't for >a moment mean that the CGI animator is any less a film >maker than a >physical model maker. I can't see any less reason for a >CGI animator >to talk to a script writer or director than a model maker. This difference is clearly not as important to you as it is for me. Film Making is not computer animation in any form.You can say that you need direction and a script,but it is not Film Making.If it is then meanings go out of the Window. What I think both Richard and myself are saying is that there is a qualitative and experiential difference between real physical use of models and the craft of film making and all the skills and insights that go with it and that of the so called pseudo film maker who sits in front of a screen all day. The continued and increasing use of CGI in productions reduces its meaning in terms of being a film. I have no problem with using CGI as an additional tool to simply enhance certain shots,however even this might be deemed as a slippery slope to the abandonment of the craft of film making altogether. Lets make sure we call it what it is becoming "Machinima" where evetually we can do away with real actors altogether. Mark UK [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:17:08 +0100
"Mark Davies" <[hidden email]> wrote: > This difference is clearly not as important to you as it is for me. > Film Making is not computer animation in any form.You can say that you > need direction and a script,but it is not Film Making.If it is then > meanings go out of the Window. > Well to be quite honest I do think that animating CGI is entirely in keeping with the meaning of the term "film making", and if you deny this then in my view it is you who must eject the meanings of the words "film" and "making" out of the window. > What I think both Richard and myself are saying is that there is a > qualitative and experiential difference between real physical use of > models and the craft of film making and all the skills and insights > that go with it and that of the so called pseudo film maker who sits in > front of a screen all day. Obviously it is a different craft, yes. However the skill and insight that goes with it is, firstly, no less considerable in my opinion, and secondly, entirely irrelevant from the point of view of the audience. Now, you clearly have a personal interest in physical models being used in films, and for you clearly CGI has no appeal in this respect. In this regard you represent a very small minority of the film-going / TV watching audience, most of whom really don't care (or even think about) how it's done as long as they are viewing a realistic spectacle. It's not (say) a real MiG-29 crashing into a tracking station in either case. The only thing that matters is that you suspend disbelief sufficiently to see a MiG-29 on the screen in the most realistic way possible. > The continued and increasing use of CGI in productions reduces its > meaning in terms of being a film. I have no problem with using CGI as > an additional tool to simply enhance certain shots,however even this > might be deemed as a slippery slope to the abandonment of the craft > of film making altogether. Again, if the goal is to make a film then clearly the craft of doing so is not abandoned merely because the method is different, and there is no loss of meaning whatever. Let's remember that the purpose of a film is to entertain and absorb, not to exhibit the process by which it was made. There's nothing wrong of course with taking an interest in model-making, but we can't expect film makers to cater to those who do, any more than we should expect the railway network to be managed in the interest of train spotters. James |
In reply to this post by Mark Davies-3
Here's an example of an all computer animation movie-anyone here remember "The Last Starfighter"? The graphics were great, just looked like that somethings missing. Agree/Disagree.
' |
Thought the Last Starfighter graphics were too fake looking. CGI wasn't ready for Primetime then. CGI in the new Battlestar Galactica represents the final completed product with all the kinks worked out, IMHO.... Dave H. --------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Muse To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:10 AM Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI Here's an example of an all computer animation movie-anyone here remember "The Last Starfighter"? The graphics were great, just looked like that somethings missing. Agree/Disagree. ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
As someone who uses CGI as a hobby, I have a good working knowledge of whatcan and can't be done in CGI at the moment.
Each movie from Pixar has had a technical improvement to the CHI used. Moreoften than not I can watch the movie and say, "hey they got that water effect right. Wow." But sometimes you watch them and say I didn't see a money shot whats going on, then you find out it was more on a technical aspect. IE for The Incredibles it was long hair dynamics. BSG is a good example of current TV CGI. There are a lot of area they avoidusing, because of budget and time constraints. And this will be true for some time yet. Last starfighter was at a point when we could do greatly improved surface textures on "hard models". However fire, water and natural surfaces like rocks etc where still to hard. By Babylon 5, the tech was better and faster, so you could now do fire and explosions, and complex natural surfaces like rocks and trees. But skins, water where still out of reach, unless you allied massive resources toward them. Now we can do skins and fluids, but realistic human motion and morphing is still very hard to get, such as in Final Fantasy. I'm hoping that if and when UFO comes to the big or small screen, they remember what they are good it. I don't want it t be like what happened to the new BSG, in that it looks very nice and all, but frankly I didn't give a hoot about any of the characters. Hence I didn't bother with the show past 2/3rds of the way through the first session. If UFO makes a come back. I'd want it to knock my socks off with new Effects sure, but more importantly, it needs to make me clap and cheer when Straker makes a cleaver tactical move which out smarts the aliens yet again. --- In [hidden email], "davrecon" <davrecon@...> wrote: > > > Thought the Last Starfighter graphics were too fake looking. CGI wasn't ready for Primetime then. > > CGI in the new Battlestar Galactica represents the final completed product with all the kinks worked out, IMHO.... > Dave H. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Muse > To: [hidden email] > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:10 AM > Subject: [SHADO] Re: Model Work and CGI > > > > > > Here's an example of an all computer animation movie-anyone here remember "The Last Starfighter"? The graphics were great, just looked like that somethings missing. Agree/Disagree. > > ' > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |