So many of us have expressed our differing views about CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) in film.
I think a fair general opinion is that film has become a bit too dependent on CGI . . . CGI that isn't good enough yet.
They are ung it for shots and ideas that ealy dates a movie as soon as a few years go by.
I don't mind crazy CGI when it fits the story but normally I think the best CGI is when you can't even tell it's there.
The best CGI by far was in "THE ZODIAC" (the one with Jake Gyllenhaal) because I watched the whole film and never noticed a thing . .. then a year or two later I see it getting an award for it's CGI and I realized more than half the backgrounds were CGI . .. it was brilliant.
It enhanced my movie going experience and I didn't even know it.
You see that chick? She's not real, she's a CG veron of actress Emily O'Brien created by facial animation studio Image Metrics.
Got this stuff below from Geekologie: Ung (USC's) Institute for Creative Technologies' special scanning system that can capture facial details down to the individual pore, the face of actress Emily O'Brien was transformed into a digital representation of herself, which could then be entirely machine-manipulated. A special spherical lighting rig captured O'Brien in 35 reference facial poses ung a pair of high resolution digital cameras. The facial maps were then converted into 3D data ung Image Metrics' proprietary markerless motion capture technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4
Oh Happy day!!!
I think a fair general opinion is that film has become a bit too dependent on CGI . . . CGI that isn't good enough yet.
They are ung it for shots and ideas that ealy dates a movie as soon as a few years go by.
I don't mind crazy CGI when it fits the story but normally I think the best CGI is when you can't even tell it's there.
The best CGI by far was in "THE ZODIAC" (the one with Jake Gyllenhaal) because I watched the whole film and never noticed a thing . .. then a year or two later I see it getting an award for it's CGI and I realized more than half the backgrounds were CGI . .. it was brilliant.
It enhanced my movie going experience and I didn't even know it.
You see that chick? She's not real, she's a CG veron of actress Emily O'Brien created by facial animation studio Image Metrics.
Got this stuff below from Geekologie: Ung (USC's) Institute for Creative Technologies' special scanning system that can capture facial details down to the individual pore, the face of actress Emily O'Brien was transformed into a digital representation of herself, which could then be entirely machine-manipulated. A special spherical lighting rig captured O'Brien in 35 reference facial poses ung a pair of high resolution digital cameras. The facial maps were then converted into 3D data ung Image Metrics' proprietary markerless motion capture technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4
Oh Happy day!!!
DaShape
Saturday 12/20/2008 at 04:14 PM | 28858
I saw this a while back at another forum, very cool stuff.
It's amazing how far they have come.
I'm all for CGI that blends so nicely that you can't even tell it's CGI.
Anything that makes the movies more believable and interesting.
For a while there I actually missed the small scale modelwork that used to drive the effects buness.... got really tired of glossy overdone CGI in every damn movie I watched.
It's nice to see that they are pushing harder to get more believable effects.
It's amazing how far they have come.
I'm all for CGI that blends so nicely that you can't even tell it's CGI.
Anything that makes the movies more believable and interesting.
For a while there I actually missed the small scale modelwork that used to drive the effects buness.... got really tired of glossy overdone CGI in every damn movie I watched.
It's nice to see that they are pushing harder to get more believable effects.
DarkArtist81
Saturday 12/20/2008 at 08:49 PM | 28897
LMAO
Maybe they can make me beautiful with this...
Maybe they can make me beautiful with this...
LÜCKMANN
Monday 12/22/2008 at 10:30 AM | 29058
