 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After seeing some speed painting work of Nico Di Mattia, I'm tempted to ask you:
Do we really need rendered stills?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K_NQe57C-k
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"bluetree" wrote:
> After seeing some speed painting work of Nico Di Mattia, I'm tempted to
> ask you:
> Do we really need rendered stills?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K_NQe57C-k
The first one looks like a rendering, but the second one looks distinctly
like a drawing, although a very good one.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
you kow, related to this -- I mean, the fact that we taught the computer how to
paint for us and it is much better than we ever could but also much slower --
I've been very, very shocked to realize one of these days that much of what we
think as 3D imagery in highend CG in the movies these days are actually
hand-drawn in photoshop or whatever rather than 3D rendered.
Don't believe me?
http://www.dylancolestudio.com/index2.html
http://www.maxdennison.com/Matte_Painting/MattePainting_index1.html
I guess 3D rendered stuff is much too heavy, so they leave it to 3D characters
and crowds. And yes, there's matte painting (though probably rendered still
backdrops) even in 100% 3D animations...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I've been very, very shocked to realize one of these days that much of what we
> think as 3D imagery in highend CG in the movies these days are actually
> hand-drawn in photoshop or whatever rather than 3D rendered.
Personally I find it sad that so much work done without computers (or, in
some cases done with computers but not with a 3D renderer, as in your case)
goes dismissed as "just CGI".
Great stunt work, miniatures with astounding attention to detail, robot
puppets which are incredibly realistic, etc. and the amount of expertise
and work put into them often go dismissed by most people as "just some
cheap CGI".
My appreciation for the newer Planet of the Apes movie increased
ten-fold when I saw from the DVD extras how little they used CGI.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One important reason for matte painting might also be the price of 3D
renderings.
What do you think about different ways of animating 3D characters?
e.g. compare these two movies (I've only seen the first one and I won't watch
the second one in future):
Final Fantasy - Spirits Within (I think ALL 3D animated characters)
Beowulf (motion captured animated characters)
I thought they could do much more nowadays ( http://www.beowulfmovie.com/ )...
Somehow it doesn't come to life. Perhaps more
"stunt work, miniatures with astounding attention to detail, robot puppets"
would have been better -> forget 3D, do it by yourself!!
So do we really need 3D renderings?
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bluetree <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "stunt work, miniatures with astounding attention to detail, robot puppets"
> would have been better -> forget 3D, do it by yourself!!
I believe that if they had went with the fad of 3D CGI in Planet of
the Apes, the end result would have been worse than the actual one.
There simply are things which are better done with makeup, puppets and
miniatures.
(Of course the opposite is true also: There really *are* things which
are better done with 3D CGI. The Transformers movie comes to mind. That's
just one place where CGI has its place.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I believe that if they had went with the fad of 3D CGI in Planet of
> the Apes, the end result would have been worse than the actual one.
> There simply are things which are better done with makeup, puppets and
> miniatures.
I agree.
> (Of course the opposite is true also: There really *are* things which
> are better done with 3D CGI. The Transformers movie comes to mind. That's
> just one place where CGI has its place.)
>
> --
> - Warp
So 3D CGI is just a good thing for SF?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bluetree <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> So 3D CGI is just a good thing for SF?
It depends.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Personally I find it sad that so much work done without computers (or, in
> some cases done with computers but not with a 3D renderer, as in your case)
> goes dismissed as "just CGI".
> ... dismissed by most people as "just some
> cheap CGI".
yes, that kinda of piss me off as well, but from a different perspective: if
people knew how much science, math, software and computer power goes into
producing photorealistic 3D scenes, they wouldn't ever call it "cheap". In
fact, they'd be completely blown-out that man is being able to recreate reality
using tools he made on his own with knowledge he aquired from countless years of
observing nature... at least, that's how I feel.
but then, rendered stuff is used just to show exploding spaceships or cheap
furry animals animations that it gets no respect. I'll tell you when it gets
respect: when John Wayne or Marilyn Monroe make a comeback in pixel-perfect
glory...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I'll tell you when it gets
> respect: when John Wayne or Marilyn Monroe make a comeback in pixel-perfect
> glory...
I doubt it. It will be a mere curiosity, nothing more.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
