On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> You are obviously full of BS.  Models and renders are friggin' well
>>> done -- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you
>>> notice they are CG is because they are moving like no human being
>>> could ever move, even with the help of wires.
>> 
>> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
>> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS.  It's just not as impressive
>> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
> 
> I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
> there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
> see the fine details like this:
> 
> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
> 
> (which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
> superpunch scene)
> 
> what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
> with the super human movements it shows a bit.

That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the 
one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead.  It's not a 
*lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either.  Not that I 
could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says 
"CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't.  The forehead is too 
long as well, and the jawline isn't right.

That was a big part of the issue; I could see Hugo Weaving in the film as 
a non-CG character, and as a CG character, and the differences between 
the two were too obvious.  That's one of the problems they had with this 
film - if you didn't put the real actor up against it, then the model 
looks really good.  But having the actor as a reference in the film makes 
it that much more apparent where the problems in the model are.

The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was 
that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.  
Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of 
the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and 
my brain registered it as "not real".

What constitutes outstanding VFX for me in a live action film is when you 
can't tell what's live action and what's not.  In these particular 
scenes, it was clear what was and wasn't.

You of course may feel differently about it.  My point of view isn't the 
only valid one (nor is yours, I would remind you).

Jim

Post a reply to this message