b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 1577617 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post not the trench run, just one shot
Didn't make the trench model
Didn't make the XWings
Says "our shots we did in just a few days" not 24 hours
doesn't match the original film look
DoF is way off
Lasers are weirdly fat
its pretty shit animation
the lighting is too flat on the models
But yes, it renders glows quite nicely.

Frikken Nerds
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 18:10, Reply)
This is a normal post Yep. It looks fucking shit.
George Lucas has already more than adequately demonstrated that you can't improve on Star Wars' visuals using CGI.
The practical effects in Star Wars and other films of that era give the films a character that just can't be reproduced on computer. It's really no different from saying "The stop motion in Jason and the Argonauts is so fake! We could totally do a better job in blender/Unreal". No, you couldn't, because you're essentially removing a key component of what made that film so fucking memorable in the first place.
As obvious as the use of chroma key, stop motion, miniatures might be at certain times during Star Wars (The Rancor scene in RotJ comes to mind), you're still attempting to replace actual, physical textures with generated textures. Actual, physical light with generated light.
We're getting pretty close to the point at which CGI is only made obvious by the physical impossibility of the scenarios it depicts (Dune 2021, for example). But even if you *could* make it indiscernable from real life, you're still making something vastly different from the original final product.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original effects in Star Wars. Are they a bit dated? Of course, but episode IV is almost 44 years old (!), of course it's going to look a bit dated. But fuck me if those effects weren't mind blowing for their time. The Landspeeder levitation illusion was utter genius, and the Battle of Hoth was just unreal back in the day. I don't think there has really been anything since that has quite pushed the VFX envelope so far out of what was possible in its era. I'd put it second only to 2001 in terms of "What the fuck did I just see", and I'm unfortunately/fortunately not old enough to have seen 2001 on release. Must have been a fucking spectacle though.

Sick to death of all these Millenials trying to 'remaster' shit that they weren't/aren't old enough have experienced the first time round. If you're so desperate to see an old movie/game with 'better graphics', just do a fucking remake. Leave Film and Television history alone. Wankers.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 19:41, Reply)
This is a normal post sounds like someone's Death Star
was just blown up by a Millenial Falcon.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:01, Reply)
This is a normal post WRT pushing the envelope since the 80s
the best CGI is that which you don't notice, and that doesn't require interaction with oblivious actors staring at a tennis ball on a stick.

Michael Bay's Transformers technically push the envelope in terms of raw numbers of animated parts, but it's visual vomit. Same with Avatar and LotR. And don't get me started on Rogue One again.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:30, Reply)
This is a normal post When I say 'Push the envelope', I kinda mean in terms of believability, too.
It's kinda like the T-Rex demo that shipped with the PlayStation. Or the first time you saw a replay in Gran Turismo.
When you look back on these things now they look archaic in comparison to today's real-time visuals, but at the time just about everybody was staring at that screen, jaws agape saying "This is it, this is as good as graphics will ever get". I remember distinctly commenting on how photo realistic it all was.
It's like a weird cognitive disconnection that occurs when you see something so far beyond anything that you're used to seeing that your brain gets dazzled by having nothing of similar scope to compare it to.

Michael Bay's shit is technically impressive, yeah. But it's like watching an uninteresting tech demo or a benchmarking loop. It's too polished and clinical to ever be mistaken for anything other than CGI.
I wish there could be a practical effects resurgence. It'll clearly never happen in mainstream cinema, as the costs/timelines would be astronomical compared to doing everything on a bank of workstations, but there was just something so wonderful about the puppetry and animatronics of the 80's especially that we just haven't got back since.

We certainly don't need trendy Milleninerds trying to improve on 'old' films that they've deemed dated. Fuck that. What's next, colourising Citizen Kane?
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:49, Reply)
This is a normal post I don't think I've ever seen photorealism in a computer game,
and I've always pointed and laughed at people who say game graphics are realistic.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 17:30, Reply)
This is a normal post I disagree, good CG is far better than the limitations of the past
But this YouTube bollocks is dogshit
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:55, Reply)
This is a normal post I'll admit there's definitely a bit of the old rose tinted specs thing going on.
The Rancor scene in RotJ looks significantly jankier in 2021 than it first appeared in 1983. Could they do a comparatively more convincing job in 2021? No doubt. But a production filmed in 1983 should remain with the visual limitations that 1983 imposed on said production. Trying to 'improve' upon a movie by bastardising it with modern technology is just wanky as fuck.
And there's still something very uncanny valley about even the best CGI these days that gives it away, although as I mentioned, with good CGI that's usually based on physical impossibilities of scale/movement/etc rather than visual imperfections.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 21:06, Reply)
This is a normal post there's something nice about watching something old and thinking how the hell did they do that without CGI?
to be honest I often like CGI best when it's hiding safety harnesses etc of practical stunts/effects
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 22:05, Reply)
This is a normal post There's a soul and creativity that goes into practical effects that just isn't really required for CG work.
Labyrinth is a great example. Essentially a feature length Jim Henson tech demonstration that completely draws you in to the point that you forget that you're watching inanimate objects for the most part. It's when you see all the puppeteers and rods and motors behind the scenes that you get a sense of disbelief about what you're looking at. Then you consider the amount of skill and creativity involved in creating all these sets and characters and the sheer amount of problem solving that must have gone into it. You just couldn't recreate that with CGI.
Even with modern motion capture techniques, something just seems to get lost jn translation.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 22:33, Reply)