[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: RUN-Trailer-tease-19.png (424 KB, 1400x583)
424 KB
424 KB PNG
How long will it take before we see any serious improvement in CGI animation? While it certainly has improved over the years, at the core of it CGI creatures still have that rubbery jerky quality to their movement that is the trademark "CGI look". Obviously the horrendous color grading and sweeping camera shots doesn't exactly help in making pic related _not_ look like something out of a Peter Jackson movie, but still.
>>
>>595485

1. not rushing shit out
2. not cheaping out on A grade projects by giving them to Pajeet or Zerglings
3. proper pre-planning and budgeting, not trying to fix EVERY SINGLE fuckup or lazy stupid shit in post
4. giving overly-OCD'd directors the middle finger when they want to trash months of work because of muh artistic vision (codename for autism)
>>
>>595485
>How long will it take before we see any serious improvement in CGI animation?

we don't know exactly, because we are not fucking fortune tellers... how long do you think it'll take?
what a dumb pointless question...
>>
>>595488
You're an idiot.
>>
>>595485
When cgi stops being an endless composition process of 2d images and you will get an almost ready render in 1 pass
For all the talk about "3d" its still mostly 2d composites with 2d painting and 2d post effects, all of which are done separately and dont blend together properly.

For animals, did you fucking see new planet of apes movies? We are already there when it comes to photorealism in both animation and rendering, biggest problem for now is the use of cheap inaccurate 2d motion blur that dosnt mesh at all with real camera motion blur as well bad final composition work.
I often see behind the scenes shoots with those insanely detailed photo realistic models, only for the very same models too look like blurry plastic in the movie after 10 editors get their greasy jew hands on it.
Also movies still heavily rely on 2d matte paintings.
>>
>>595498
>For animals, did you fucking see new planet of apes movies? We are already there when it comes to photorealism in both animation and rendering
humans are animals too lad. We are not "there" as you say. The apes were unconvincing tbqh. I go to the zoo all the time in the summer and this new apeshit didnt even come close to looking real.
>>
File: Nigger.jpg (5 KB, 236x180)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
You stop outsourcing to streetshitters and chinks

But thats NEVER going to happen, because of grubby (((producers))) that just want a cookie cutter product out fast.
>>
>>595500
god you're insufferable
>>
>>595498
Thing is, technology can only go so far. I'm not entirely 100% certain we can do that in a way that cuts down render times.

As for motion blur, the problem is that both CGI and real footage has this issue where they overdo it a lot of the time these days. It's less "which does it worse" and more "Everything's beginning to look computerized, even the real things" when they overdo it.
>>
>>595487
>>595498
yeah basically this
also
>Pajeet or Zerglings
keeeeeek

I was watching some video earlier today and there were shots of the new Jurassic World juxtaposed with some of the og Jurassic Park, which lead me to: HOW THE FUCK CAN IT LOOK SHITTIER 24 YEARS LATER




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.