Matte Paintings Vs. CGI
Steven L.
paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
Like the scenes of the underground Krell machinery and giant ventilation
shafts in "Forbidden Planet." They are hand-drawn matte paintings, and
Lucas might think them crude. But I think they had a certain artistic
charm to them that you just don't get with today's hyper-realistic
computer-generated imagery. Another example is the Bonestell
astronomical art that starts off the 1953 version of "War of the
Worlds." Again, there was just something about these hand-drawn
paintings that made them true art, which today's computer graphics just
doesn't seem to have.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Jeff Duncanson
Steven L. wrote:
> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
Every time I watch "Black Narcissus", I'm amazed at the look that they
achieved with matte paintings.
Jeff
ANIM8Rfsk
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 8/21/05 11:06 AM:
> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
Yes
>
> Like the scenes of the underground Krell machinery and giant ventilation
> shafts in "Forbidden Planet." They are hand-drawn matte paintings, and
> Lucas might think them crude. But I think they had a certain artistic
> charm to them that you just don't get with today's hyper-realistic
> computer-generated imagery.
yes
Another example is the Bonestell
> astronomical art that starts off the 1953 version of "War of the
> Worlds." Again, there was just something about these hand-drawn
> paintings that made them true art, which today's computer graphics just
> doesn't seem to have.
It's the artist, not the medium. I've no doubt that Ellenshaw could paint a
bg in Photoshop that would smoke anything we see today.
>
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
Joe McC
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF2E195A.4C106%ANIM...@cox.net...
I'd agree, though I don't believe "hyper-real" modern trickery is any
more convincing than hand drawn mattes.
Joe
Jess Askin
"Joe McC" <j...@NOSPAMredhotchilli.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4308cdf7$0$17492$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
All these things start to look phony once your eyes get used to them. I
remember snickering at the "people" moving around the deck in the overhead
shots in Titanic.
--
Jess Askin
Iowa, USA
Stephen Cooke
You just read my mind.
swac
Artis
Roadshow.
bru...@mail.com
when it will finally "arrive". example being, cloth flapping in the
wind. it just simply is not done well yet.
i think matte paintings are nostalgic. the paintings themselves are
done well......it's the matting that was imperfect.
nanwynnfan
20 minutes into the flick I'm asking myself, "Is this what $1 billion
budgets bring in special effects - computer generated drawings of
people?"
ANIM8Rfsk
bru...@mail.com at bru...@mail.com wrote on 8/21/05 4:27 PM:
> the prob with cgi is that it's too perfect.
I disagree totally.
creating imperfect cgi is
> when it will finally "arrive". example being, cloth flapping in the
> wind. it just simply is not done well yet.
that I agree with.
>
> i think matte paintings are nostalgic. the paintings themselves are
> done well......it's the matting that was imperfect.
>
--
ANIM8Rfsk
at tgcor...@adelphia.net wrote on 8/21/05 5:11 PM:
Yeah. And two of them doing EXACTLY the same thing on 2 different decks --
I was laughing out loud.
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
No.
The price you pay for matte paintings is motion--or the lack thereof.
> Like the scenes of the underground Krell machinery and giant ventilation
> shafts in "Forbidden Planet." They are hand-drawn matte paintings, and
> Lucas might think them crude. But I think they had a certain artistic
> charm to them that you just don't get with today's hyper-realistic
> computer-generated imagery. Another example is the Bonestell astronomical
> art that starts off the 1953 version of "War of the Worlds." Again, there
> was just something about these hand-drawn paintings that made them true
> art, which today's computer graphics just doesn't seem to have.
There's crappy cgi just as there's crappy painting.
QUALITY is not limited to oil and glass.
That said, it's a different skill. Are you watching the movie for still
paintings or are the paintings working to provide a background to the movie?
It depends on what you look at movies for or what you look for in movies.
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Or as the old adage goes, it's a poor artist that blames his tools.
Worst case scenario, you simply scan a painting digitally.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Joe McC" <j...@NOSPAMredhotchilli.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4308cdf7$0$17492$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
When they move they are.
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 8/21/05 5:57 PM:
>
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
>> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
>
> No.
>
> The price you pay for matte paintings is motion--or the lack thereof.
>
>> Like the scenes of the underground Krell machinery and giant ventilation
>> shafts in "Forbidden Planet." They are hand-drawn matte paintings, and
>> Lucas might think them crude. But I think they had a certain artistic
>> charm to them that you just don't get with today's hyper-realistic
>> computer-generated imagery. Another example is the Bonestell astronomical
>> art that starts off the 1953 version of "War of the Worlds." Again, there
>> was just something about these hand-drawn paintings that made them true
>> art, which today's computer graphics just doesn't seem to have.
>
> There's crappy cgi just as there's crappy painting.
>
> QUALITY is not limited to oil and glass.
True, although I think the skill of matte painting was lost before matte
painting itself was. Compare the elder Ellenshaw's work to the youngers.
>
> That said, it's a different skill. Are you watching the movie for still
> paintings or are the paintings working to provide a background to the movie?
> It depends on what you look at movies for or what you look for in movies.
I think a big problem with the SG1 type 'matte painting' environments is
that they're always doing camera moves on them you couldn't possibly do in
reality, and it gives it away immediately.
>
>> --
>> Steven D. Litvintchouk
>> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>>
>> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
--
Barry Margolin
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
The paintings can be great, but those thick black boundaries that often
show up between the live action and the matte could be really annoying,
and they often showed up in even the highest quality movies.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball
ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
You're killin' my "Kate Winslet high", dude...
--
CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!!
"It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost
as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do
>> SFX--with matte paintings and other tricks, before the days of
>> computer graphics?
>
> No.
>
> The price you pay for matte paintings is motion--or the lack
> thereof.
>
Special effects can add animation to matte paintings, as was done in
Forbidden Planet and Citizen Kane.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
I have little passion for pure democracy -- a system by which 51
percent of the people can give 49 percent of the people a wedgie.
-Jonah Goldberg
Ken from Chicago
> in article y-udnan2GdK...@comcast.com, Ken from Chicago at
> kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 8/21/05 5:57 PM:
>
>>
>> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
>>> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> The price you pay for matte paintings is motion--or the lack thereof.
>>
>>> Like the scenes of the underground Krell machinery and giant ventilation
>>> shafts in "Forbidden Planet." They are hand-drawn matte paintings, and
>>> Lucas might think them crude. But I think they had a certain artistic
>>> charm to them that you just don't get with today's hyper-realistic
>>> computer-generated imagery. Another example is the Bonestell
>>> astronomical
>>> art that starts off the 1953 version of "War of the Worlds." Again,
>>> there
>>> was just something about these hand-drawn paintings that made them true
>>> art, which today's computer graphics just doesn't seem to have.
>>
>> There's crappy cgi just as there's crappy painting.
>>
>> QUALITY is not limited to oil and glass.
>
> True, although I think the skill of matte painting was lost before matte
> painting itself was. Compare the elder Ellenshaw's work to the youngers.
I like a great sf painting or illustration and wish they did more of that
for book covers instead of the boring headshot, headshot, headshot,
headshot--at least for media tie-in novels. Nice to see STAR TREK: NEW
FRONTIER finally break that mold with STONE AND ANVIL, GODS ABOVE and NO
LIMITS. ANALOG, ASIMOV and AMAZING magazines have a legacy of truly
fantastic genre paintings and illustrations on their covers.
>> That said, it's a different skill. Are you watching the movie for still
>> paintings or are the paintings working to provide a background to the
>> movie?
>> It depends on what you look at movies for or what you look for in movies.
>
> I think a big problem with the SG1 type 'matte painting' environments is
> that they're always doing camera moves on them you couldn't possibly do in
> reality, and it gives it away immediately.
This was a complaint I had with TNG, the lack of cgi and over-reliance on
matte paintings--or worse, using cgi merely to create a STATIC "matte
painting" background. The LACK of motion was a dead giveaway, or very
isolated motion. The human eye is designed to look for motion. The utter
stillness of matte shots are the giveaway after more than a brief display.
As for cgi, the problem with them is a rut of slow panning, tracking,
zooming shots for what looks like merely to show the backgrond. A lot of cgi
animated series fell victim to that, notably, REBOOT. It's even noticeable
on FUTURAMA when there's an obvious cgi animation shot. It's a pattern they
fall into, like a 3-camera sitcom has a pattern of various kinds of shots.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3msoq6F...@individual.net...
Now cgi can do it all instead of cobbling together matte paintings and
animation.
Try looking at some of the screenshot of some modern computer games. For the
past month I've been playing GUILD WARS and it has breathtaking vistas in
which the game is played and its all cgi, and it's real-time animation. You
can travel in and around the scene yourself--well, at least your onscreen
avatar.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-18B56A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
One of the great things about BABYLON 5 was how it dealt with boundary lines
on sets because you were long trained to see the lines around windows where
the set ended and the windows were cut out for the blue screen, or green
screen, and Joe revealed the lines were hidden so well because the ENTIRE
SET was cgi only the PORTIONS of the floor was real--and the actors of
course.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<bru...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1124666822.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The best of cgi is NOT in movies--that's merely the highest resolution.
The best more realistic can be found for computer and video games:
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1023
I would suggest starting with the bottom animation--the one that begins with
cloth ... flapping in the wind. Then realize this if for a game released
THREE YEARS AGO--meaning the animation is even older.
Here is what several years of develop can achieve:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=65&type=wmv
Cloth, fur, snow, hair, leaves, grass, fire, smoke, glowing embers blowing
in the wind.
As well as other cutscenes (not to be confused with lower-resolution
gameplay):
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=22
One of several videos show at the E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) this
year:
Final Fantasy Advent Children:
http://www.gamespot.com/psp/rpg/finalfantasyviiadventchildren/media.html
Gears of War:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/media.html
And the controversial Killzone 2:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/killzone2/media.html
The controversy was whether the 3d cgi animation was pre-rendered or
realtime, because if it were the latter, then you could change the camera,
the player's pov INSTANTLY and the animation would track, pan or zoom
SEAMLESSLY in ... real time.
The answer for the seeming paradox that cgi for a computer screen could be
better than for a movie is that while movie cgi is in far greater detail
since it has to be on a big screen, it's also viewed by a "mainstream"
audience and only shown for a few minutes. This differs from computer and
video games where 20-hour playing times are viewed as "short", where players
are used to watching cgi animation intently (since it's often the clue to
winning the game), the fluency of movement, center of gravity, lighting and
shading, skin blemishes, subtle "idle" movements from characters simply
standing around or standing guard, etc., and are used to the various tricks
to simulate reality. Sure "cutscenes" tend to be higher resolution than
gameplay and last only a few minutes, but then are viewed by gamers who are
far more experienced in watching cgi cutscenes so they have a higher level
of expectation than the average movie watcher--or tv watcher.
Ever watch a long-time gamer playing a game? Their rate of eyeblinks slow
down merely from staring so intently.
-- Ken from Chicago
Dale Houstman
Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> This was a complaint I had with TNG, the lack of cgi and over-reliance on
> matte paintings--or worse, using cgi merely to create a STATIC "matte
> painting" background. The LACK of motion was a dead giveaway, or very
> isolated motion. The human eye is designed to look for motion. The utter
> stillness of matte shots are the giveaway after more than a brief display.
>
I don't know. To say the human eye was "designed to look for motion"
isn't demonstrably true in any way. It's just meant to "see." The "eye"
(or actually the brain) will be AS interested in something that ISN'T
moving in an otherwise mobile panorama. Stage sets can be very
interesting, as are - obviously - paintings. There is actually an
over-reliance on mere sensation in modern film, a basic distrust of a
viewer's patience and simple ability to appreciate anything that is well
executed. Afetr all, the vast majority of things seen in film DON'T
move. A great matte (as for example, those seen in Bava films) can be
more interesting than a cgi product; it isn't so much the media as it is
the level of experience and commitment of the artist involved (in Bava'a
case, Bava himself). And there is something to be said for
"artificiality" used to great effect in many films; from musicals (with
their evocative flats) to science fiction and expressionist films ("The
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.") I think modern film is far too concerned with
a putative "realism" but the film-going experience (like going to a
museum or reading a book) doesn't necessarily have to equate with
perceived reality. In fact, people often crave the sensation of the
artificial, and there is no inherent reason (besides cultural bias and
zeitgeist) that such artificiality can not be used to grand effect.
dmh
Ken from Chicago
"The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball" <ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid>
wrote in message
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-E14786.182...@news-rdr-02.socal.rr.com...
You'll always have TITANIC sketches--and HIDEOUS KINKY and HOLY SMOKE (which
seem to form a "thematic" trilogy where Kate starts out as prim and proper
from high society then goes off on a mad adventure to India and finally her
family have had enough and get Harvey Keitel to deprogram her and bring'er
back alive).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Akin to how ELECTION is the thematic sequel to FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY
OFF.
Ken from Chicago
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:4309A251...@skypoint.com...
The human eye is far more sensitive to black and white than color as
analysis has shown far more rod to detect brightness versus color and far
more likely to register something when it moves. You are naturally drawn to
movement.
-- Ken from Chicago
Steven L.
> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3msoq6F...@individual.net...
>
>>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Ken from Chicago
>>declared:
>>
>>>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>news:go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do
>>>>SFX--with matte paintings and other tricks, before the days of
>>>>computer graphics?
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>The price you pay for matte paintings is motion--or the lack
>>>thereof.
>>>
>>
>>Special effects can add animation to matte paintings, as was done in
>>Forbidden Planet and Citizen Kane.
>>
>>--
>>Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
>>I have little passion for pure democracy -- a system by which 51 percent
>>of the people can give 49 percent of the people a wedgie.
>> -Jonah Goldberg
>
>
> Now cgi can do it all instead of cobbling together matte paintings and
> animation.
The advent of color photography didn't end the art of painting with oils
or water colors. Both photography and painting are now considered
artistic mediums. And both have their uses. With a painting, you are
seeing what is in the artist's mind--the aspects of the scene he wants
to show you--rather than just what was in the real world. It can be
expressionistic or even surrealistic.
The emphasis on hyper-realistic CGI has lost that filtering mechanism of
the artist's mind. It's a rush to show *exactly* what would be in the
real world if the scene really existed.
Steven L.
> The human eye is far more sensitive to black and white than color as
> analysis has shown far more rod to detect brightness versus color and far
> more likely to register something when it moves. You are naturally drawn to
> movement.
Only when it's not overdone.
Some of us are not naturally drawn to riding roller coasters or
bungee-jumping or skydiving.
The problem with today's CGI is that it has been used as an excuse to
give the audience roller-coaster-like thrill rides, in which the
"camera" is swooping along at speeds and bank angles that admittedly
would have been impossible before CGI. But I'm getting tired of it--how
many Spider-Man movies are there going to be? The SFX artists are
clearly spending too much time worrying about exciting motion and less
time worrying about artistic-looking scenery.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3msoq6F...@individual.net...
>
>>> thereof.
>>
>> Special effects can add animation to matte paintings, as was
>> done in Forbidden Planet and Citizen Kane.
>>
> paintings and animation.
>
Can and should are two different things. I've yet to see a CG vista
that can match a well-done matte painting.
> Try looking at some of the screenshot of some modern computer
> games. For the past month I've been playing GUILD WARS and it has
> breathtaking vistas in which the game is played and its all cgi,
> and it's real-time animation. You can travel in and around the
> scene yourself--well, at least your onscreen avatar.
>
I've seen cutting edge game graphics on TechTV, and none of it is
even on the level of Shrek, neverthemind photorealistism.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Zapp Brannigan: If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the
dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
-Futurama
Joe McC
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qpqdnZnoC51...@comcast.com...
>
> "Joe McC" <j...@NOSPAMredhotchilli.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:4308cdf7$0$17492$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>>
>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:BF2E195A.4C106%ANIM...@cox.net...
>>> in article go3Oe.9911$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven
>>> L. at
>>> sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 8/21/05 11:06 AM:
>>>
>>>> Anybody else nostalgic for the old way they used to do SFX--with matte
>>>> paintings and other tricks, before the days of computer graphics?
>>> It's the artist, not the medium. I've no doubt that Ellenshaw could
>>> paint a bg in Photoshop that would smoke anything we see today.
>> I'd agree, though I don't believe "hyper-real" modern trickery is any
>> more convincing than hand drawn mattes.
> When they move they are.
Honestly, I don't believe that's the case. Recent output is technically more
impressive without a doubt. The problem is that much of the imagery is
well rendered yet poorly considered. This can often be more intrusive
than "bad" or "old fashioned" f/x.
Steven L said it best in an earlier post:
"The emphasis on hyper-realistic CGI has lost that filtering mechanism of
the artist's mind. It's a rush to show *exactly* what would be in the
real world if the scene really existed".
In effect, most state-of-the-art cgi is coming from the fevered
brow of a generation of graphics geeks with no sense of context.
They're corporate techno-heads with no boundaries who've been given
the keys to the kingdom & they're indulging *themselves*.
Outside of Gollum perhaps, (which took it's inspiration from a talented
actor's "secret" performance), there's been no true cgi artistry......not
yet.
Needs another 5-10 yrs before we see any truly interesting
output - assuming the "film" industry is still recognisable as an
artistic medium by then, as opposed to being an extension of video
gaming conglomerates.
Joe
Dale Houstman
This is simply irrelevant to an aesthetic experience. There are
thousands of films that contain static elements, and - obviously - you
can only tell if something is moving if something else isn't. The French
sci-fi film is composed of nothing but still shots, yet it is a triumph.
It makes no difference what the brain-eye complex is "naturally" drawn
to, because art is meant as much to challenge common precepts as to meet
them. In a long shot of Mt. Fuji, with the bustling (moving) city below
the human eye will fixate on the one immobile object in the frame: Mt.
Fuji. There is a reason many filmmakers create relatively or almost
totally static establishing shots (the Eiffel Tower, the golden Gate
Bridge, etc) because they are instantly recognized and eagerly seized
upon by human perception. I watched the great Lubitsch film "Trouble in
Paradise" the other night; there is a scene in which (for an entire
minute) the frame is entirely taken up with a shot of an almost
completely static clock. The fact is, movement to the human eye is not
limitable to mere "motion through space" but also encompasses forms; the
sweep of an arch, the steepness of an incline, etc. This is movement in
film. In a shot of a moving mass of people, it is the still person who
will garner attention, and also beg the question "why is that person not
moving?" This sets up tension, suspense. This is FAR more central to a
film's impact than merely assuring that the objects keep moving.
dmh
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
That's where talent and skill come into play.
Admittedly with increased technology more and more movies can "hide"
"behind" the fx.
With time the audience tends to adjust and demand more. It used to be merely
having a "motion" picture, then sound, then color was enough to wow
audiences ... until they adjusted and demanded more.
There was a period where just having talkies was a big deal while the art of
SHOWING the audience was diminished when you could tell them.
There was a period where just showing reality in living color shot was a big
deal while the art of chiaroscuro, of using light and shadow, of black and
white, and endless shades of gray to SHAPE reality, ALTER perceptions was
diminished.
It took time for those lost arts to remembered, redrawn and reused from the
big 64-crayon box movie makers had--and reappreciated by audiences.
The same happened with cgi. 3D CGI animation was a big deal.but VALIANT did
poor business even tho in August there was little competition, especially
"family fare". Same with FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN despite all the
hype over how photorealistic the cgi was--because the WRITING was crap.
Because WRITING is the real ace up Pixar's sleeves and why TOY STORY,
FINDING NEMO, THE INCREDIBLES, etc. were so good--even tho the cgi was less
photorealistic ... deliberately so. Moreover the cgi was used for artistic
effect not merely the standard track, pan and zoom.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
Calligraphy is still an art despite word processing and digital publishing.
But as you point out, it's the EMPHASIS on "hyperrealism" that's the problem
and not the cgi. Paintings can be just as boring and mundane by painters
merely emphasizing reality.
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
Chicago at kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 8/22/05 6:46 PM:
Valiant got really bad reviews, and I have to say, I didn't hear a word
about it until about 3 days before it got release, and I'm in the freaking
business.
Same with FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN despite all the
> hype over how photorealistic the cgi was--because the WRITING was crap.
Well, so was the animation.
> Because WRITING is the real ace up Pixar's sleeves and why TOY STORY,
> FINDING NEMO, THE INCREDIBLES, etc. were so good--even tho the cgi was less
> photorealistic ... deliberately so.
Yes
Moreover the cgi was used for artistic
> effect not merely the standard track, pan and zoom.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
--
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 8/22/05 6:51 PM:
I disagree. I think it's the fact that the people doing it have never done
anything else. They have no background in real photography. They have no
idea what a camera on location could or could not do. And so they
inevitably created shots that seem phony, because one way or the other, the
trick is obvious.
That and, unless it's in the A team at Zoics hands, Lightwave renders suck.
Ken from Chicago
It's a poor artist that blames their tools.
You can find crap and genius in every medium.
For everyone one complaining about cgi over matte painting there's someone
complaining about abstract over realistic painting, about colored oil paint
over pen and ink, of pen and ink over pencil and paper, of the kind of
drawings I've seen growing up in book illustrations or depictions of comic
pages before they are colored in versus continuous one-line drawings I've
only seen in the past 10-15 years.
It's not the medium but the artists and their method to blame if they
produce crappy art.
Of course "crap" is in the eye of the beholder.
-- Ken from Chicago
ANIM8Rfsk
kwicker1...@comcast.net wrote on 8/23/05 3:27 AM:
That's a debate we have a lot in the business, and there is a school of
thought that says Lightwave inherently sucks. Of course the A-Team at Zoic
is trying to prove us wrong, but it's really odd that the B & C teams at
Zoic can't get a decent image out of it either.
>
> Of course "crap" is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
--