are CGI effects becoming more 'obvious' the more we see them? (1 Viewer)

[Geoffrey_A]

It's a funny thing actually. You don't notice that it's happened until afterwards, but when you're an animator your visual acuity just sky rockets. Oddly enough, I haven't used my reading glasses since I started. The real give away that these were inexperienced animators, or possibly animators with no classical training and only digital experience was in the walks. It's a big thing in classical animation to get the walks right. We spend a lot of time studying the mechanics of it. The biggest thing we've discovered is, it looks better and more "real" exagerated. If you film a walk, then trace it, it won't look right for some reason. However, exagerate the squash and stretch and boom, lively animation.

It's something the ILM animators should consider, more accurate to reality does not always translate into better. A little exageration in the walks would go a long way to bringing life into it. Another thing to think about is physics. Jar Jar's dive into the water was awful, he hung up in the air way to long. Had he still been traveling in his arc it would have worked, but because he stopped dead in the air suddenly it looks fake. It's all about arcs when it comes to animation. Limbs travel in arcs, there's swing based on where the weight in the limb is situated. There are a number o fanimation principles that they really should keep in mind. I personally have a list taped to my desk, so I can refer to it, because just because you know them doesn't mean you'll remember to use them.

One thing I noticed a lot fo was twinning, that is, arms and legs or whatever moving in the same way at the same time. This never looks natural. Overlapping action is something they could improve on. I'm sure it'll look better this time out, but one never knows. Hopefully they've hired some actual experienced classical animators as opposed to the computer geek variety of animator. There really is no substitute for classical training.

 

[Terrell]

I have to say again Geoffrey, that dive wasn't supposed to look like a human dive. It was supposed to look like a Gungan dive. This is fantasy after all, for the most part. Exacting realism is not warranted. These things and creatures don't exist. I understand what you're saying about the weight of objects. I think pretty much everything in TPM had that. I thought the effects were amazing.

We're talking about ILM as if they're amateurs. They have far more experience than anyone here. They're the best effects house on the planet, with the most oscars. I think they know what they're doing. It's fun to discuss things, and they aren't perfect. Nobody is. But let's not act like these people are amateurs.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Terrell said

Exacting realism is not warranted.

I'm kind of inclined to agree with Terrell here. Who the hell knows how a Gungan is supposed to walk anyways. To be honest, I love CGI and its look. The only time CGI makes me mad is when the real thing can be accomplished. A great example of this is the Shelby jump in Gone in 60 Seconds. Pathetic IMHO.
CGI is at the childhood stage now, and as far as the animators themselves are never satisfied, the techniques will continue to grow. I will say this: it's a hell of a lot better than stop-motion.

 

[Terrell]

Well, most of the stuff in Star Wars that's created with CGI is not real. It certainly needs to suspend our disbelief and make us believe it's real. But it's not exacting in that we don't know how it would move, act, or do anything.

My only problem is we're starting to talk about ILM as if they were amatuers. They're not.I think the effects in TPM easily suspend disbelief and causes us to process it as real. That is if a Gungan was real, which it's obviously not.

I don't think the dive looks what a human dive is supposed to look like. This is an underwater alien. It's easy for us to sit back and be a Monay morning quarterback. It would be much different if we were in their shoes. They are responsible for a huge number of effects. It's only natural that it wouldn't be exacting in every detail. You can already see the improvements from TPM to AOTC. I suspect when Episode III roles around, the process will have matured even further.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

We're talking about ILM as if they're amateurs. They have far more experience than anyone here. They're the best effects house on the planet, with the most oscars. I think they know what they're doing. It's fun to discuss things, and they aren't perfect. Nobody is. But let's not act like these people are amateurs.

I wasn't implying that at all. I agree, they're results and consistantly the best. However, I've read in several places that Lucas wanted to bring in fresh blood for TPM, so many of the animators for TPM were the most "green" at ILM. That doesn't say they're bad animators, just not the tops ILM has. There are very few problems I have with TPM's digital graphics. I agree they're amazing, and we're talking minute details here. But this IS ILM. We're comparing great to the best here.

 

[Terrell]

No I wasn't saying that's what you were saying flatly. I was just saying it seemed were getting to the point where we were talking in a tone that seemed to imply they didn't know what they were doing.

 

[Geoffrey_A]

I'm not suggesting that ILM are amatuers, I'm suggesting that perhaps some of the animators are not overly experienced with character animation. Remember, ILM is not a single person, it's made up of people. To assume that ILM has more experience than anyone here would be presumptious indeed. Character animation is worlds different than what ILM had been doing routinely up until that point. So, while ILM as a company has years of experience, this does not mean that every one working at ILM shares in this wealth of experience. ILM, like any other company, has rookies, people learning the ropes.

As for the jump, Gungun or no, physics is physics. Unless the Gunguns have the ability to levitate, the arc of the jump didn't work. It's not about exacting realism, I've already said exagerated works better. Now, if we're supposed to believe that a gungun can jump and then freeze in mid air fine, but the movie doesn't support that, so I'm left with no alternative but to assume that it was just poorly concieved. It wouldn't have taken much to make it work, a little pushing on the arc so Jar Jar could continue his forward motion, even slowly, would have worked.

How should a gungun walk? I suspect their limbs probably shouldn't pass through solid matter. Also, I suspect since they're bipeds, that the mechanics of their legs work in relatively the same way as our own. Giving them certain eccentricities to their walks is fine and good, but these flubs don't fall into that category.

Nothing against ILM, they're all very talented people, but there's no getting around that, in spite of that talent, these mistakes occured. I could sugar coat it, but that would be pointless. I'm not trying to put ILM down or paint them as amateurs, but without open and honest criticism, how will they grow? Not that I suspect this will ever reach them, but if it does, I do hope they realize that inspite of all this I still hold them in the highest respect.

 

[Terrell]

Ok, I've just watched the dive, and Jar Jar does not levitate or hang there. As for the Gungans limbs, apes can be bipedal and they're 99% identical to humans, and they don't walk like us. But again, you're expecting too much Geoffrey. If they were creating a real human, then maybe I could understand some of your criticisms. As for limbs passing through solid matter, I don't know what you're referring to there.

How has ILM not had any experience with character animation? Maybe not everyone there has that experience. But I'm certain they have specialists there that do have quite a bit of experience with character animation. They've done it in commercials as well as films. ILM artists don't just do the work and then they're work is final. Their work is supervised by specialists and supervisors who have years of experience. And yes, they have inexperienced people there. I certainly wouldn't call them rookies. In fact, many new guys that come to ILM often come from other successful effects houses where they previously worked, such as from Digital Domain and Sony ImageWorks. They just don't hire a guy off the street who has some knowledge of animation and CGI work.

 

[andrew markworthy]

It's curious isn't it, that whenever animation is done on human or vaguely humanoid creatures, that's when we really notice the limitations. Bug-like creatures (for which presumably our brains carry far less movement knowledge) are generlaly observed far less critically.

Incidentally, I should perhaps re-emphasise the point I made at the start of the thread: it's the fact that whenever a new special effects technology comes along, at first I'm taken in by it, and then without fail I begin to see it as a special effect. Heck, as a small kid I even was taken in by stop-motion stuff.

 

[Dan Brecher]

It doesn't reach the extent where it puts you off thought does it, Andrew? I mean, I can sit there and watch Clash of the Titans with ease despite how the stop motion works looks today.

Whilst we may notice an effect, I think if the film draws us in enough we forget about it and are happy to let it slide. It's as if you realise its an effect but you file that thought to one side and let what you see on screen simply draw you in.

Look at T2 today. Some shots still hold up increidbly well, but take the shot with the liquid T1000 strolls out of the flaming wreckage of the truck and it looks a little off, but that's ok because we're so in awe of the idea that the son of a bitch is seemingly unstopable it's enough to add to the visual effect to make us believe what we're seeing.

So, what I am trying to say is I think that what was a great effect in its day, though somewhat questionable today, will stand the test of time if the effect remains part of exciting goings on on screen. This holds true for the likes of T2, Superman, the original Star Wars releases and many others.

If we look to The Mummy Returns and take in the visual disaster that is the CG scorpion monster at the end it becomes instantly questionable because movies like this put their visuals pretty much before anything else, and it's movies like this where the visuals won't stand the test of time becauses it's not a question of the CG looking bad in future, it looks bad now, and there is little attempt at drama in helping sell the effect more.

Dan

 

[Terrell]

ILM must have been sleeping the day they did those effects in Mummy Returns.

 

[Cees Alons]

Andrew's point is very true. I don't think any of you fail to notice a background projection shot (blue screen or not) nowadays, especially in older movies. Even when they try to have camera movements relative to the subject(s), there's something in the image telling you what you're looking at. Mainly caused, I think, by the fact that you know and recognize the technique.
Same for CGI. Once it was amazing. But of course, whenever you see something impossible, like a creature that doesn't exist, you're attentive. Does it somehow walk as if there is a human inside the suit? Or is there something odd anyway?
Apart from some lighting effects that don't match (just like in those blue screen takes), there is almost always something wrong in the movements, in my view. The best example is the entrance of the velociraptors in the room with the kids in JP. They simply move in a slightly wrong way. Too quick? Aren't those heads supposed to be heavier than those of a bird or a lizard? And the stampede in Jumanji - something slightly wrong now and then. Same with those apes.
I'm sure, if an alien (how strangely looking perhaps) would in fact visit our earth, he/she/it could look very odd, even the way of moving. But I also think the movements would continue to look natural to us. Often, the CGI don't.
Now I'm a big lover of CGI and I think they are a great improvement over some of the older techniques when used in a proper way (and for the proper problems). But they will have to improve it further, and Andrew is certainly right: now we get to know it, we become more and more demanding.
Cees

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Nah, they just had a VERY tight schedule and weren't getting paid enough to adequately staff that film to get it in on time

 

[TheoGB]

Titanic was a clear example of this for me but it was a bit of a weird one. The opening sequences underwater of the ship just made me cringe because they looked like such bad FX shots. It was only after I found out it was REAL footage.



I actually think Jurassic Park is very very good. The only sequences where you think CGI are the two open air ones and possibly in the finale with T-Rex and the Raptor. Obviously bright sunshine stuff is a problem, but the close in stuff, like in the kitchen, just looks excellent.



But I think JP is an exception due to Spielberg, who I think already showed us in Jaws that he knows how to use a not-totally-convincing 'monster'.



Look at something like The Matrix - the shots of the farming always looked very fake, but the narrative's strong so you ignore it.



And Jar-Jar is good. In fact Phantom Menace looks very good indeed but I wonder if that's because it's all so CGI that everything is presented in a common field.



T2/ looks good but I think that's largely because we expect T1000 to be fantastical-seeming. He looks like mercury and so we can instantly believe that if such a thing existed it would seem that way. There is maybe one dodgy shot though - when he rises out of the floor chequered black and white to attack the guard...

 

[Chuck Mayer]

One argument I keep hearing nowadays doesn't ring true. Some people have argued that CGI looks more realistic on items that exist in everyday life, and that fantastical CGI creatures look CGI because they are fantastical. Which is the EXACT opposite of what some of the experts have said in the past.

I have heard that the fantastic is EASIER to create because the rules aren't set in stone. That cloth, water, and actual material objects are harder to create and make 'real' in CGI because the human eye can detect the 'flaws,' that it knows what to look for. Maybe that isn't accurate anymore, but I have always felt it to be the case.

Thoughts...??

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Agee Bassett]

Geoffrey_A:
Kudos on a series of some of the most thoughtful, educational, and eloquently-expressed posts I have read in my time at the forum. Should be a lesson to us all.

 

[Paul Richardson]

Of course, this is the case with all effects...over time and exposure, they become more obvious. I remember ooing and aahing over the railcar sequence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom when it first came out. Now I watch the sequence and all I see are a bunch of barbie dolls riding around a miniature set.
Of course, for every blatant and ridiculous use of CGI, there's a legitimate and seamless one. We should compile a list of CGI effects and shots that nobody knows are CGI.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Perhaps should also add - yes, I still enjoy CGI stuff, along with stop motion, etc, provided of course the movie is good. I probably have got more harmless enjoyment out of Jason and the Argonauts than practically any other film.

 

[Carlo_M]

are CGI effects becoming mor 'obvious' the more we see them?

Yes.
The more movies I see, the more I think there is no substitute for good matte paintings and model work. There was something so organic about the original Star Wars films and the effects they used. Everything in, say TPM, looked too artificial. Nothing looked aged, everything was pristing. You'd have thought Coruscant never had any sort of weather, or natural elements. Either that or there's about a billion window washers working 24/7.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Carlo,

Mightn't that be deliberate, though? To show Coruscant (and Naboo, to a lesser extent) as shiny and genteel, mostly obvlious to the rot inside and the decay that will later emerge under Palpatine's rule?