[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] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



I've heard a lot of people say Thanos is, but I think his effects will appear somewhat dated in the near future. To me at least, Pikachu takes the cake. Before I knew about the movie and just saw the wrinkly face meme I thought it was a puppet for an advertisement or something. I think the cuteness helps a lot too, even shitty CG characters seem passable if they're cute, but Pikachu manages to cross over from being cute like a cartoon character and all the way into being cute the way an actual animal is.
Who do you think it is?
>>
>>701907
Pikachu certainly ticks all the boxes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHb1rGdWJbI
>>
File: puke.jpg (46 KB, 312x312)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>this is what zoomers actually believe
>>
https://youtu.be/GOlVRHsVzE4
That fucking bear
>>
>>701919
Maybe it's just because I'm used to seeing bears in bright sunshine where I live, but to me that bear didn't seem right. Don't get me wrong, that scene is great, but somehow it just felt more like every other CGI monster than an actual animal.
>>
>>701920
Yeah, I think too the bear seems a little off but it's one of the greatest CGI shit I've ever seen.
>>
Jungle Book CGI was pretty fucking epic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0MD1g_5dV4
>>
File: colin.jpg (12 KB, 540x360)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1569353670566.webm
>>
>>701925
I may be wrong but I believe that the animals in that were done by the same studio as the pokemon in detective pikachu.
>>
>>701929
It's really amazingly done
>>
>>701925
The whole movie looks fake as fuck. Like an unrealisticly polished disney version of what real animals and nature look like.
>>
>>701942
better than the revenant bear, not even a contest
>>
>>701920
Yeah. The bear's movements look a bit too flowy.
>>
>>701919
Sure in the parts where you just see it's ass and it's mostly dark but when it moves into the light and you see it's head it's incredibly obviously cg
Have to say Pikachu beats it
>>
>>701907
The planes on 9/11 videos. Shit looks too real
>>
File: download.gif (3.16 MB, 640x360)
3.16 MB
3.16 MB GIF
>>
>>702285
I wish I could do that, but nobody wants to even act in my shitty short movies. :[
>>
>>702285
it looks like modern Daz, Scorpion king was decades ahead!
>>
>>701907
93' Jurassic Park

undisputed champion
>>
The bugs in Starship Troopers still look good. I'd say bugs, and especially hordes of them, are well-suited to 3d animation due to their sleek carapace and repeated movements.
>>
File: t725[1].png (103 KB, 725x453)
103 KB
103 KB PNG
>>701907
lern2cg
>>
>>701907
20 years later and CG still can't compete with pic related.
>>
>>701907
It'll remind you a lot of the Garfield from the Garfield movie a few years down.

Thanos is a solid choice because he could pass as a man in heavy make-up, really it just works because he's a purple man, so it looks human.
>>
>>702724
I know nothing of cg and I am only here because I just decided to look at boards I never looked at before, but I saw this thread and this is exactly what I was going to say.

Why don't cg designers even try to make it convincing anymore?
>>
>>702307
That's because having sex in front of a camera doesn't qualify as acting, mate.
>>
File: trex animatronic.jpg (221 KB, 940x494)
221 KB
221 KB JPG
>>702861
Gee anon, I wonder why that is
>>
>>703414
>implying that wasn't the point
>>
>>703415
Not a very fair comparison then, but yeah practical effects movies where so much more visually impressive and enjoyable.
>>
File: Rachel.png (160 KB, 341x306)
160 KB
160 KB PNG
>>
>>701907
The transformers
>>
winner
>>
>>701919
CGI is good
The CGI interaction is awful. I.e most of his clothes are intact after bites and claw swiping.
>>
File: maxresdefault (4).jpg (142 KB, 1280x720)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>702724
The cg in that is actually pretty weak. It's really only held up by how sparingly it's used. It's less that it actually looks real and more that the filmmakers knew how to trick you into not paying attention to how bad it looks. No doubt a lesson he learned on jaws.
>>
File: 1563804413000.jpg (177 KB, 1200x1200)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>
>>703609
Fuck you kid you don't know shit
>>
File: 1568425043655.jpg (136 KB, 592x726)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>703609
Do it better homo lover.

You can't.
>>
>>703628
>>703629
They were obviously great for the time, and the animation and modelling are still top notch, but it's just a fact that lighting technology at the time was not nearly as good as it is now. The special effects look good because of how well integrated they are into the scene. They knew exactly when and how to switch between practical and cg effects as well as how to hide the limitations of the technology, but you're insane if you're insane if you think the T rex scene at the end of the movie is the most photorealistic cg character in existence. It certainly was at the time, but compared to modern cg the dinosaurs on their own are just not as realistic.
>tl;dr the tech in Jurassic park was nowhere near modern equivalents but works because they were aware of the limitations.
>>
File: jurassic_park2.jpg (291 KB, 1920x1280)
291 KB
291 KB JPG
>What is, in your opinion, the most convincing CG character in history?
The Tyrannosaurus in the first J-Park movie.
>>
>>703609
>It's really only held up by how sparingly it's used.
So, they used CG the way it should be used.
>>
>>703637
>is the most photorealistic cg character in existence.
The question was "most convincing", not "most photorealistic",
>>
>>703649
Exactly.
>>703650
Holy fuck, you're right. If you want to know what level of absolutely retarded brainlet I am: I'm OP.
>>
>>703391
Because it's literally so convincing you can't even really notice it anymore, except when it's especially bad, or on the nose.
Like 90% of movies these days use CGI, and I'm not even talking shit where it's obvious like superhero movies. There's tons of "regular" movies where entire environments are faked and it's just shot in front of a basic ass facade.

You just don't notice it because there's not a fuck ton of CG going on, and it's not the focus of the scene. There's hardly any movies nowadays that are 1:1 shot on location without completely changing it into whatever they want later in post.

This isn't the best example, but it is an example of the type of shit I'm talking about being used in a "regular" movie that's not focused on special effects.
https://youtu.be/pocfRVAH9yU
>>
>>703807
>putting fake people in a scene with a real lion instead of a fake lion in a scene with real people
>>
>>701907
god I fucking hate Pikachu
>>
>>704452
Shiiit, I don't make the rules.
Maybe it was easier that way. To be fair, they both look like they were shot on site, just at different times. So in reality, the order they showed them in doesn't matter. They're both composited into the same scene that was shot in the same place. Kinda like duplicating yourself on video.
The ones shot in front of a greenscreen shows that in those scenes, so it's safe to assume the lion scene wasn't.
>>
Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean.

It's been what, 13 years since that shit came out, and he is the BEST looking cg character I've ever seen to this day.
>>
>>704653
Yup, this. Still fucking impressive.
>>
>>704653
And it was even before PBR materials/renderers were used.

Suck it, CGlets.
>>
>>704529
Oh I know, I just think it's funny that they chose to show it as the lion first with the people on top. Like it's obviously to make it clear that it's a real lion and not cg, but the presentation is funny.
>>
>>704653
You're probably the kind of tasteless cretin who cranks up SSS on all organic materials until you can see straight through it
>>
>>705559
Most materials that are not straight up metals have some amount SSS, often simply too little to detect except when held against really bright light sources. Of course it has to be always a sensible amount, we don't turn everything into wax candles.
>>
>>704653
> Not realising that this wasn't actually CGI but the actual Davy Jones
>>
>>705716
Still surprises me to this day that people do not know this.



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.