He's gone too far. Ken Bruce must be stopped.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 13:43, Reply)
Espec as you are playing with the form and not doing a one trick pony job. Totally interested to see where you go with this next. and I can sometimes be a bit add doodah. Clickety of course,..
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 14:41, Reply)
Wikipedia's headline article for the day sent me down a KLF-hole, and I popped out here.
Soz, but you'll have to click through to watch.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 13:07, Reply)
....or maybe not. Spanish language skills not necessary unless you're interested in the short intro.
RIP Robert Miles.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYhZqACbg4
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 15:10, Reply)
Kirsty might be in full flow during that intro for all you know.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 18:34, Reply)
Would rather see this experiment conducted in the wild.
Im a sucker for videos of animal interactions with unknown objects.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 0:53, Reply)
Screaming kids will have probably had more of an effect than the robodog.
Also, perhaps it's just me, but that thing moves a lot like a porcupine would.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 4:53, Reply)
Haven't we all all evolved to be freaked out by unfamiliar objects from the valley of the uncanny? The cheetahs look stressed. A robot that could run away in zigzag like an antelope would have been more fun.
Spy in the Wild/Snow had many scenes of wildlife reacting to strange objects
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 5:11, Reply)
I liked the way the cheetahs quickly determined which way round it was so they could approach from behind.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 13:30, Reply)
he admitted on a dvd extra interview to have essentially lifted the orchestration and wholesale stole the melody off Delibes:
youtu.be/U8BMcPjZcUw
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 0:12, Reply)
A bit smug, but deservedly so...
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 22:25, Reply)
Seems a decent enough chap, you're being a bit horrid
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 7:05, Reply)
Not helped in the slightest by the last two years.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 8:28, Reply)
that you push ham across to cut it into slices?
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 13:48, Reply)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY7GnAq6Znw
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 21:35, Reply)
You'll probably like this
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:23, Reply)
What better name if you're into diving?
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 19:28, Reply)
In popbitch newsletter this month but worth a wider share :)
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 18:29, Reply)
Something like it, though. A 1980s American crime show involving high technology. I can't remember what it was.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:33, Reply)
VFX nerds remake Battle Beyond the Stars Trek Galactica trench run scene where the hero Biggs Darklighter blows up the Dark Star - but in just one day! With computers!
Frikken Nerds, right?!
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 17:32, Reply)
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)
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)
was just blown up by a Millenial Falcon.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:01, Reply)
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)
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)
and I've always pointed and laughed at people who say game graphics are realistic.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 17:30, Reply)
But this YouTube bollocks is dogshit
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 20:55, Reply)
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)
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)
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)
we have 126 million receptor cells in the eye, give or take, it's a very sophisticated bit of evolved kit, and despite the advances CGI isn't quite there yet. the big imperial ship passing overhead at the start of the first star wars still holds up well because it was a model, not a simulation
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 21:11, Reply)
Technology has moved on. It’s now as far away from the Special Editions as they were from the original releases. It’s not a surprise that we have better tools and methods today.
So, I’m not sure what they’re adding to it, other than their Bro egos.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 21:12, Reply)
If that's the effect they're going for, 10/10
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 21:13, Reply)
No-one likes people messing with classic movie special effects.
Who'd have thought?
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 9:55, Reply)
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 8:16, Reply)
One of the advantages of having a horizontal bar is that you can maintain a reasonably full amount of control one-handed. You know, like when you stop to pick something off the shelf - which happens quite a lot in a supermarket - unsurprisingly.
My local Morrisons has 'hybrid' trolleys which have both parallel handles and a horizontal bar, using the handles feels completely unnatural - to me, at least.
It's apparently peer reviewed, so maybe there's some truth to it. I can only speak anecdotally, but it's just not for me.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 8:51, Reply)
Likely due to the fact that I only got 7 hours of sleep, it was bloody freezing this morning, and I was accosted by a needy fuckwit of a customer before I even had the chance to get my coat off and have my morning sigh. That rant did help relieve a little of the tension, though. 'Ning!
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 10:14, Reply)
All the laws of trolley physics may break down near the Middle of Lidl
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 11:56, Reply)
Would a panel of their peers not consist of equally competent fuckwits?
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 14:48, Reply)
I can’t properly express my hatred of supermarket shopping if I can’t do it with my head in my hands.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 19:42, Reply)
If a shopping trolley handle stopped you picking it up, you didn't really want it.
Similar principle to not putting doors on shop fridges, though that is even more environmentally fucking awful.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 11:06, Reply)
when you read the methodology, the way they say they eliminated the psychological effect of the novelty of using a new cart as a confounding factor was with an exit questionnaire sample, but this is notoriously unreliable way of determining what influences people, most are completely unaware of why they do most things as consumers, and frankly as marketing researchers they should know better. a better designed comparison would have both carts available to shoppers for several months, so you know you're not seeing the novelty effect play out in impulse purchasing. I'd like to see research in the effect of different muscle groups in trolleys ending up in canals
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 13:40, Reply)
So fast that you can't actually buy anything.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 17:28, Reply)
but foolishly the wise question the wisdom of the answer to the question that was never asked, while the fool makes potato salad and thinks this is answer enough
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 13:57, Reply)
rolling my eyes a bit, but the pay off made up for it
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 9:17, Reply)
consider yourself cancelled
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 21:14, Reply)
I have no problem with transgender.
Haven't heard of non-binary.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 3:51, Reply)
Either you have, or you haven't.
(, Fri 26 Nov 2021, 7:56, Reply)
when the update was happening.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 23:17, Reply)
And significantly more entertaining than the 'proper' John Lewis ad.
Honestly. I'm not one for the telly these days, and it's been a given for the last 10 or so years that the John Lewis Christmas Ad is going to be sentimental wank accompanied by a breathy, uninspired cover version of some past chart topping pop superhit. But this year's one seems particularly low effort.
Human child meets alien child with an apparent case of foetal alcohol syndrome. Human child does some vaguely Christmasy things with alien child. Alien child buggers off home E.T. style and we're meant to feel a bit sad that she's leaving despite the fact there has been absolutely no character development besides a bit of a shit snowball fight and an awkward kiss. Does the wee boy not have any friends? Do his family hate him? What's the fucking context here?
Load of bloody wank. And it's not even fucking December yet.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 23:38, Reply)
It's supposed to be an uplifting memory of a happy holiday couple but once you realise her man is actually long dead and her best recollection of him is on a poxy P&O liner you'll perk right up.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 0:15, Reply)
aliens aren't real. it's a story of a boy having psychotic hallucinations triggered by some past christmas trauma, he's actually in restraints in a secure mental health facility, and the advertiser's message is: "nutters want to shop at john lewis, too, even black ones"
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 3:00, Reply)
But there's a great write up of the ad one their site at the moment.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 7:28, Reply)
Just like how Daddy or Chips made cannibals switch to a plant based diet
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 8:30, Reply)
Although, there's a good chance that's because he's on a register now.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 8:59, Reply)
Oh boy are you going to have fun next year when our glorious overlords return for harvest.
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 11:33, Reply)
Does the original advert slightly remind anyone of this?: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWmbUMStlGI
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 14:37, Reply)
lot of dosh to be made in nostalgia
(, Thu 25 Nov 2021, 13:48, Reply)
Explaining the point of DART, and showing the launch.
SpaceX might be a vanity project in origin, but they're actually doing real space science and shit - unlike space tourists Beardy and Baldy.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 18:43, Reply)
Less so than Baldy's suborbital glans, though.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 18:44, Reply)
I know Musk is absolutely full of shit in so, so many ways, but he's been consistently saying he wants humans to be an interplanetary spacefaring species, and rapid reusability was always the goal of all Spacex launch systems.
The reason why launch costs are coming down is almost single-handedly because of Spacex.
Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are vanity projects. Inspiration 4 was a spinoff from real, serious work fulfilling contracts for people like NASA, such as this here DART thingy, which is very exciting, BTW!
22:51 for the launch.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 20:10, Reply)
Still a iddy biddy bit vanity.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 21:13, Reply)
androids, the child rescue submarine, the hyperloop not-a-train, and Neuralink to some extent, are very much about vanity.
The stuff that makes the solar system more accessible, and the planet more viable for human life, if it's at all about his vanity, I don't care as long as we get that good stuff.
(, Wed 24 Nov 2021, 21:45, Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »