Let's not sugarcoat things - 1970's computer graphics looked like ass. What were those developers doing wrong back then which led to such weird-looking, off-putting images and videos?
Uh... they were stuck behind severe hardware and computational limitations?
>>635620Are you baiting or mentally retarded?Traditional GPUs weren't really a thing. 3d acceleration was an incredibly distant idea. Only the richest institutions could afford a computer that could render graphics like the op picture
>>635620Well, try several million-dollar processors that clocked at _just_ over a dozen megahertz. And those were considered bleeding-edge! (well, until the advent of microprocessors, but even then it would take until the 80s for us to see regular double-digit megahertz, and only when the 00s rolled around did we breach the gigahertz line)That's not even talking about bit depth. Our current systems pretty much all run 64x, but it would take until the 90s for 64x processors to become a thing. Then there's storage and memory. Want a more than a gigabyte of storage? Wait until the 80s, save up over a $100k, have fun with the refrigerator-sized IBM 3380. You need more RAM? Well, I can spare you just about a few kilobytes.Whatever 1970's CG you saw would have been at the forefront of its time. Pretty much no one besides companies invested in CG could afford the hardware to make such art, and whatever art was made would be the product of months or maybe even years of computer graphics research. ...and nowadays any pajeet can download Blender and throw together a donut in the hour. We've come a long way.>>Let's not sugarcoat things - cave paintings looked like ass. What were those cavemen doing wrong back then which led to such weird-looking, off-putting paintings?
>>635618This has to be a troll post right? No body could be this ignorant.
>>635624There are still ways to make graphics look GOOD with limited computing power. Some of the early vector graphics games like Space Wars looked stylish and futuristic despite running on limited juice. But when 70's computer graphics designers branched out beyond such things, they tended to produce images that looked rather awful - gaudy, weird fonts, awful shades of puke greens, etc. Their aesthetics were troublesome.
>>635630>stylish and futuristicWelcome to minimalism. I do agree that you can make things look hella good with just the barebones, in fact I myself enjoy the minimalist artstyle quite a lot. But that's a bit of a digression. >Their aesthetics were troublesome.Well, wasn't the entirety of the 70s and 80s aesthetic (sorta) like that? People loved the eccentricity. Wild hairstyles, neon colours, just an oddball of looks. When you try to cram that into the digital world with such a bottleneck constricting you, you're bound to end up with something plain bizarre. You can really only go in that direction so much.
>>635630> Thinking 70s graphic designers could choose which shade of green to use in their art..That's cute.
>>635633Limitation just makes the art better. Haven't you seen all those tedx talks about being creative while staying inside the box?
>>635635And the OP picture is pretty good for only having 7 colors on the screenTed talks are usually by smart people, but that doesn't mean they are right or that their points are applicable universally.
>>635635>>635637>tedxYeah, I get what point you're trying to make, but TEDx talks are independently organised. TED does give the greenlight, but they aren't actual TED Talks.
>>635635Bullfreakin shitYou can be hella more creative if you have a million in the bankBuying tons of artistic canvas wouldn't be a great deal and you can get to work fasterBeing inside the box is limiting as fuck
>>635618oldfag here, in CGI since the mid 80s.stfu kid, you know shit. Keep slaving away on these cheap gaming assets while Pajeet steals your jobs.
>>636164No, you are wrong. Most people, even artists, want freedom from choice...not freedom of choice...without knowing it.
>>635620Are you fucking retarded