Amazing work

>>517092
nice watch, thanks anon

File: Pic related.jpg (355KB, 1723x997px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1723x997px

It was pretty neat, but there's a few obvious fuckups.
It really breaks the immersion.
It wouldn't be bad if it wasn't really noticeable, but the errors and shit happen on things that are actually being focused on.

For example, in pic related.

Any time there's a car in the scene with a photomapped car, there's a huge difference in quality.
You can argue that it's not going to be detailed as an actual photo, but not even the lighting or the materials are remotely similar and there's a huge disparity between the two.

There's a scene with a lady walking, and she seemingly clips into another dimension.

And another with a dude using telekinesis to lift a box.

Some scenes are pretty good, and look great.
But there's a lot of scenes that just look really weird and uncanny. Not in a good way.

The concept was good, but the execution was alright at best.

>inb4 do it better, or show us your work

>>517092
Overall C-, looked like a proof of concept / rough draft, not a final render.

The "aged movie reel" effects (I forget the proper term for this suite of effects) was distracting, while the color balance and so on didn't actually match FILM (it likely matched photographs or lithographs or whatever though, which is a different medium from film).

The figures looked really weird moving around, the lighting on them didn't match the surroundings, the animation was just jerky in general, everything looked really uncanny.

Opening "time machine" effect was good, though it looked a bit like something from 2007