 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> Personally, I didn't. The writing was so offensively bad that I almost
>> walked out in the middle.
>
> Maybe it was not a masterpiece of scriptwriting, but I didn't find it
> so absolutely horrendous.
>
>> Cameron's two best movies came out more than 20 years ago
>
> It has only been 19 years since Terminator 2.
>
Yes, that would be his 3rd best :)
(I realize that such a ranking is, by it's very nature, contentious...
but for me, Aliens was the best, with Terminator being second, followed
by T2 and Titanic, and then The Abyss. I have yet to see either True
Lies or Piranha 2, so I can't judge those).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar
> would win it.
There were many points during the movie where objects in the foreground were
blurry because of DoF, and if you tried to focus your eyes on them they
would look like a blurry object.
I don't consider this to be a serious flaw; it's more of an artistic
decision. Non-3D movies have exactly the same problem (focusing your eyes on
an object do not bring it into focus), and I don't think it matters much
more when viewed stereoscopically.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4b51939e$1@news.povray.org...
>> IMO, if there was an award for getting DOF right in a CG film, Avatar
>> would win it.
>
> There were many points during the movie where objects in the foreground
> were blurry because of DoF, and if you tried to focus your eyes on them
> they would look like a blurry object.
>
> I don't consider this to be a serious flaw; it's more of an artistic
> decision. Non-3D movies have exactly the same problem (focusing your eyes
> on an object do not bring it into focus), and I don't think it matters
> much more when viewed stereoscopically.
>
I mostly agree... though when you get cross eyed to look at a close object,
your eyes are used to get focus closer.
Here they are not able to...I got some trouble with that before accepting
it.
At other moments I enjoyed having (as IRL) small things as 'mosquitoes' or
seeds flying at the edge of my awareness between me and captivating action.
I thing it is a gimmick though, when got used to, it loses most of it
interest.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> and I don't think it matters much more when viewed stereoscopically.
I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the same
way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the character
isn't using lenses).
I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and is
more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
YMMV of course.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b51f88d@news.povray.org...
> I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the
> same way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the
> character isn't using lenses).
>
> I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and
> is more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image sequence
of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue that a narrow
depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're looking at
something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as well as color
saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based on our
acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a pretty
good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of abstraction
now...) in Poser of all things.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b51f88d@news.povray.org...
>> I disagree. Maybe it's just because we're more used to flat film (the
>> same way that video games put in stuff like lens flairs even when the
>> character isn't using lenses).
>>
>> I think the brain knows it's looking at a projection on a flat screen and
>> is more fooled by the stereo, so the inability to focus is more obvious.
>
> That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
> the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image sequence
> of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue that a narrow
> depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're looking at
> something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as well as color
> saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based on our
> acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a pretty
> good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of abstraction
> now...) in Poser of all things.
>
> --
> Jack
>
>
The narrow depth of field is not the only cue, and may not be the most
powerful. What a tilt-shift lens also does is chance the way parallel
lines appear. You can see the effect more dramatically when looking at
pictures of architecture where, were you are the ground looking up, the
sides of a building would appear to converge, a tilt-shift lens allows
you to force them to be closer to parallel. When you are up close to a
small cube, the lines you see appear parallel. The larger the object,
the more the lines appear to converge.
Another is the strange way the brain expects parallax to work at long
distances, and the way it does when viewed through high magnification
lenses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's how a lot of tilt-shift images are able to give the impression that
> the viewer is looking at animated toys, instead of a film or image
> sequence of "real" objects. We have become accustomed to the subtle cue
> that a narrow depth of field (a feature of macro type lenses) means we're
> looking at something small. An artist can play with depth of field (as
> well as color saturation and other goodies) and create an illusion based
> on our acclimation to cinema and still photography. I once saw a guy do a
> pretty good tilt-shift simulation artificially (layer after layer of
> abstraction now...) in Poser of all things.
It's surprising how easily you can get this effect by just blurring a couple
of areas in photoshop by hand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b562a8a@news.povray.org...
> The narrow depth of field is not the only cue, and may not be the most
> powerful. What a tilt-shift lens also does is chance the way parallel
> lines appear. You can see the effect more dramatically when looking at
> pictures of architecture where, were you are the ground looking up, the
> sides of a building would appear to converge, a tilt-shift lens allows
> you to force them to be closer to parallel. When you are up close to a
> small cube, the lines you see appear parallel. The larger the object,
> the more the lines appear to converge.
>
> Another is the strange way the brain expects parallax to work at long
> distances, and the way it does when viewed through high magnification
> lenses.
Oh, I know tilt-shift is more complicated than that... I was really
stretching an analogy too far, I guess. :-)
I was looking through a book the other night that was showing optical
illusions, some very old and some very new. Some of the newer ones were done
with computers and were modified by moving the shadows around. The article
in the book was talking about how we're accustomed to mentally converting 2D
images to 3D representations, and how the brain can be fooled. It got me to
thinking about how much of visual art (in particular CG and film) is based
on what the mass audience is trained to expect, rather than what is "real".
I had a discussion with someone a while back about "realism" in CG. She was
trying to create a realistic looking puddle of blood for some horror image
or other. She was unhappy with her results, and cast a net to try to get
other ideas. A lot of people chimed in with simulating the viscosity of the
fluid, it's reflectiveness, the way it changes color, and the way it, well,
spatters. My suggestion was to put some red food coloring in some clear corn
syrup, pour it on a cutting board or plate, and use that as a model. She
thought that was wierd, but I pointed out that that's one of the most common
sorts of "movie blood" (it's called Kensington Gore, IIRC) and that what she
probably wanted was not "real" blood, but blood that looked like what they
do in a movie, because that's the only kind (I hope) that most of us ever
see. People who don't have to see large amounts of real blood mostly don't
know what it really looks like (it's thinner than in the movies, and turns a
boring brownish-red that has no sheen and looks awful [read: boring] on
color film). She later said that that was exactly the look that she was
trying to achieve, and she felt like it helped her image.
As with most of life, "realism" in CG seems to be about managing
expectations. :-D
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:4b56be24@news.povray.org...
>
> It's surprising how easily you can get this effect by just blurring a
> couple of areas in photoshop by hand.
I did that a few years ago for an image I did... the rendering software I
was using didn't support depth of field, so after rendering the image, I
made a series of increasingly larger and feathered masks around the main
subject, inverted each one, and applied a succession of small (but
cumulative) Gaussian blurs to the image. I'm sure it didn't look anything
like a real macro lens or what 3D DOF could be with a better program, but it
was a nice effect.
I saw a great process for doing this with After Effects, too. If you render
a depth map (a B&W image of the scene where surfaces further from the camera
are darker and ones closer are lighter), there's a way to attach the depth
map to the DOF filter in AE, and have DOF without the tremendous rendering
overhead it usually seems to take.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> sorts of "movie blood"
And in Psycho, they used chocolate syrup, because the blood didn't look
bloody enough in black and white.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
