On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:49:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Exactly, which is a good thing that they are never on close up.  Good
> enough on a distance.  And despite visible flaws, still miles of
> distance from what one may find in any modern game, which don't have
> subsurface scattering or real hair.  That's why I call Andrew's
> assumptions BS.

They may be for you, but for him and me they're not, they're reasonable 
assumptions.  Good for you that they're good enough to support the 
suspension of disbelief; they're not for me. <shrug>

>> 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".
> 
> Yes, but I can't imagine either how a super being with super strength
> would look like by, say, walking and jumping on top of lots of people
> underneath.  Perhaps it'd look downright... unnatural and cartoonish.

Well, your lack of imagination in that matter doesn't impact my brain's 
interpretation of the events, which I found to be not in line with what 
reality would look like in my mind.

Jim

Post a reply to this message