Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Compositing is my grief. The CGI that looks bad is the stuff that's at a different focus that stuff at the same position in the scene, and that has different lighting. Even Gollum in LOTR suffered from this, despite the clever way they animated him into the scene by making sure the image included several inches of space around his 'body'.

Nurglitch wrote:
Compositing is my grief. The CGI that looks bad is the stuff that's at a different focus that stuff at the same position in the scene, and that has different lighting. Even Gollum in LOTR suffered from this, despite the clever way they animated him into the scene by making sure the image included several inches of space around his 'body'.

I dunno, it can be pretty seamless, like that time they gave henry cavill wobbly disturbing CGI lip meat in justice league.

Things like Alita, the OT Star Wars, Heroes, and Babylon 5 are good examples of using special effects to SERVE the story.

Stuff like Transformers and ST Star Wars are good examples of using special effects to SUBSTITUTE for the story.

OT SW didn't use CGI.

It used optical printing and compositing for the first one, and digital video editing for the other two.

The PT used CGI (ep1 only had about 25-30% - a lot of the cg was used to composite the models with other live footage and there was an awful lot of model work on ep1. Ep2 was about 50/50 CGI to live action, and ep3 used mostly CGI backand foreground elements and a script droid wrote it. There were a couple of key model sets that were used, but much of the bg work was cgi.)

 chromedog wrote:
OT SW didn't use CGI.

It used optical printing and compositing for the first one, and digital video editing for the other two.

The PT used CGI (ep1 only had about 25-30% - a lot of the cg was used to composite the models with other live footage and there was an awful lot of model work on ep1. Ep2 was about 50/50 CGI to live action, and ep3 used mostly CGI backand foreground elements and a script droid wrote it. There were a couple of key model sets that were used, but much of the bg work was cgi.)

the point isn't that star wars was CGI but about how it used it's special effects although if you went back ti 77 or 78 you'd hear a lot of the claims SW was just "special effects porn" leveled at it too

BrianDavion wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
OT SW didn't use CGI.

It used optical printing and compositing for the first one, and digital video editing for the other two.

The PT used CGI (ep1 only had about 25-30% - a lot of the cg was used to composite the models with other live footage and there was an awful lot of model work on ep1. Ep2 was about 50/50 CGI to live action, and ep3 used mostly CGI backand foreground elements and a script droid wrote it. There were a couple of key model sets that were used, but much of the bg work was cgi.)

the point isn't that star wars was CGI but about how it used it's special effects although if you went back ti 77 or 78 you'd hear a lot of the claims SW was just "special effects porn" leveled at it too

Mainly by critics, whose appetite for something new and unusual means they overlook the appeal of the classic hero's journey story.