Fantastic beasts looks shit

File: image.png (1MB, 650x1045px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 650x1045px

>>544166

OP there with the 'CG isn't as good as practical' line again.

File: image.png (544KB, 467x750px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 467x750px

>>544166

No please, go on. Tell us how it 'really shows a dedication to a craft' when film makers use practical effects. Again.

File: image.jpg (106KB, 650x1045px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 650x1045px

>>544166

So much insight, OP. Thank you. I, and everyone else on Earth, were under the illusion that CG images are inherently better than anything else because they are made on newer technology. You've really helped lift the veil.

File: 1473903607838.gif (4MB, 327x261px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 327x261px

>>544169
>>544170
>>544171
3edgy5me

>>544169
>>544170
>>544171
What?

I am saying that CGI IS better than practical effects because it can literally do whatever the artist wants (even if the artist wants a practical effects effect) BUT i am asking WHEN will we get to that point?

In Fantastic Beasts, the CGI goblin looks like a piece of shit in comparison to the other harry movies

>>544173
Never because computers can never simulate physics properly or well enough so the animations and movement always look weird

>>544173
Never because computers have no soul and could never emulate a human who loves their work.

>>544181
humans command the computers hombre or are you baiting

>>544182
Baiting. What else an I supposed to do when OP asks a bait question then follows it up with an unanswerable one?
Sometimes CG looks phenomenal like in the newest Planet of the Apes or Jungle Book. Can't even imagine them pulling that off with practical effects.
Sometimes CG looks like complete shit. Who's to say when it will all be at the level that is only occasional seen.

File: maxresdefault[5].jpg (111KB, 1337x752px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1337x752px

>>544166
It already is.

>>544184
How is it a bait question?

>>544186
Lol that looks shit though. make up on a real person would look better

>>544184
It's fun to speculate anyway anon. Calm your autism.

Fantastic Beasts had very bad CGI from what I've seen. Apparently the new Godzilla game has CGI that replicates the movement and appearance of a practical effect/real Godzilla puppet.

I haven't watched it. Maybe someone here can confirm

>>544189
What are you talking about? That looks fantastic. It's not supposed to be a live action movie, it's animated.

>>544189
You must have amazing works if you have such high standards. Post some so we know you're the 3D master that you talk like.

>>544191
It's supposed to be lifelike CGI which it fails at. If not, then yeah it looks animated

>>544184
>Planet of the Apes
the original movie still looks better because the apes look obviously animated (especially when theyre moving)

jungle book is a good one though

>>544194
>im the director of the movie guis I know what the movie should be about
stop embarrassing yourself

>>544166
Because CGI actually takes effort, money, talent and time and those studios doing it all have an intention to make profit first.

>>544166
i kind of think the goblin is an artistic choice bei the creators. other cgi scenes look good in comparence. for example look at
vimeo /195327439

>>544201
And you're the director are you?

>>544203
Intended to create an uncanny valley face? It's easier to model inanimate objects than a humanoid face

None of the creatures looked good.

>>544208
True

>>544179
>Never because computers can never simulate physics properly or well enough so the animations and movement always look weird

Pretty much this. CGI will hit a wall

>>544262
Computers can simulate physics properly though

>>544284
No they cant and never can

>>544289
Well if you mean to a single atom, no.

But humans have a limited atom resolution that they can see. So why does it?

>>544292
>But humans have a limited atom resolution that they can see. So why does it?
wtf?

>>544292
What?

>>544293
>>544295
I think he means that humans don't see at a resolution fine enough to notice every individual atom. Therefore, computers don't need to replicate atom based physics but merely compound based physics.

Am I right?

>>544296
Yes

>>544194
>lifelike
What do you think this means?
I'm curious.

It's obviously cartoonish, and not going for a photorealistic approach.

>>544166
>this shitty topic
I really don't get what people see/demand in/from CGI at the end

>>544321
The ability to do anything visually

Human perception has a limit and cgi can and will get to a lvl where it can completely trick us into not being able to different real and cgi. The question is when. I say in the next 10-20 yrs. Look at the first toy story movie and look at the cgi we can render in real time now. That was just 20 yrs. CGI is on an exponential growth. We will hit that point where things look as real as the possibly can.

>>544326
Not true. Silicon chips are hitting their limits soon. Unless quantum computing becomes a thing, I don't see us ramping up like we did in the last few decades.

>>544171
>>544170
>>544169
Shittington never fails

>>544202
>and those studios doing it all have an intention to make profit first
the FX outfits have limited resources, multiple projects in the pipeline and studios who want results yesterday

Benjamin Button's an example of doing it right: 90% of the early shots of "babby" Pitt's old man face are digital puppetry made with Pitt in a tank, but they move smoothly enough that most people thought they were just him in makeup digitally superimposed on the body actor.

>>544327
>Silicon chips are hitting their limits soon

> hey look mom i brought moore's law into a thread about a technology using consumer grade technology

You must be 18+ to post on 4chan

>>544338
>producers use 'consumer grade technology' when they utilize render farms for their CGI

lol wat

>>544336
>they move smoothly enough
no the face looked sluggish and a bit blurry compared to real pitt's face

>>544166
>When will CGI actually look good in motion and fully replace practical effects?

You're asking a stupid question, OP.

Here's the intelligent version before you fuck off back to /tv/:

> When will human puppetry reach the point of being indistinguishable from live actors

First off, we only started making walking biped rigs that define their own gravity a few years back, but most vfx studios are still using mocap (which seems like a good track but mocap artists aren't always the most natural in their movements).

Skin requires subsurf to completely lightmatch the scene, something that ironically gets done better in post on actual actors by firms like Stargate Studios.

Facial motion works best with rigs that bother modeling bones, muscles, fat and skin (with variable elasticity) which is time consuming to build and slower to render. If you're modeling a known actor, it's even more effort to match how their skin deforms and wrinkles as well as remain inside the ranges of their expressions.

We presently HAVE all of those things, but funding them isn't cheap.

Right now the most realistic thing CGI does in the movies is cloth simulations as that Vimeo video linked above shows (plastic McCormick's-style spice bottle in the 1920s, fucking hell).

The main problem with Gnarlak is the piss-poor design where everything is compressed at the top and elongated at the bottom; even with perfect animation and lighting it's uncanny as fuck because even if it's meant to be alien, it's just WRONG to brains that instinctively process faces for this kind of thing.

Wayne Barlowe made all kinds of freaky aliens and monsters and never made them look like birth defects.

>>544341
they aren't renting supercomputers any more and haven't since the 90s, they're using consumer grade PCs with amped graphics cards.

>>544344
So you're basically saying that the potential is there but it's not ubiquitous or cheap enough yet?

>>544345
they still use supercomps

>>544345
>they aren't renting supercomputers any more and haven't since the 90s, they're using consumer grade PCs with amped graphics cards.
lmfao. Stop spreading false news.

Cg can be great given time and resources but Hollywood doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line and cg is just a tool studios use to cut corners and speed up productions. On average a big movie takes a year and a half to make.

>>544387
>cg is just a tool studios use to cut corners and speed up productions
I heard it's hella expensive

how about you stop bitching about realism and set your own standard for realism through your works.

realism is already hard to make when animated, so im not expecting hyperrealism yet

>>544390
>when animated, so im not expecting hyperrealism yet

Hyperrealism can be done in still shots but yes the animations let it down because computers cant into physics and never will

>>544392
im sorry, but a computer will never be able to simulate the complex physics of a massive goblin penis accurately, no matter how much money you pump into it (the computer not the penis)

>>544169
>>544170
>>544171
you're a fucking idiot

File: 1346363791043.jpg (89KB, 998x1000px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 998x1000px

>>544284
honestly. think about this for a moment. if computers could accurately simulate physics, then physicists would be put entirely out of work, we would have no use for things like supercolliders or any form of physics related experiments, and we would already know if it were possible to achieve fusion power or not because we would be able to solve all problems and hypotheses in physics through simulation. notice how that isn't something that's happened? that's because no, we are not even REMOTELY close to properly simulating physics. physics is more than just making a ball or a box bounce when it hits a wall. physics is more than just simulating some blocks falling down stairs or water particles flooding through a door

>>544345
>they aren't renting supercomputers any more and haven't since the 90s, they're using consumer grade PCs with amped graphics cards.

thanks for reminding me why i stopped coming to this board

>>544327
>Silicon chips are hitting their limits soon.

actually sort of a valid point, but only sort of. silicon chip technology is not reaching its limits; what's happening is that we're nearing the point where it will become exponentially harder and more expensive to further miniaturize the size of transistors/etc in ICs, but that doesn't mean we're nearing a point where we can't make chips faster and more efficient. all it means is that we would be hitting maximum speed and efficiency for the specific way we have been making ICs to date, but intel and others have already for years been developing and testing new unique forms of IC production that will being to turn ICs into (as i understand it) something more of a three dimensional package with layers of circuits built up and linked together that will drastically increase chip speeds and efficiency without really taking up much more space. this is a new technology and approach that i'd imagine we'll be working with and improving for a long time before we hit a point where we've hit the highest achievable performance/efficiency that's still economical

Fantastic beasts was pretty good. Mainly because it was nothing like Harry Potter

>>544169
fucking autistic
>>544170
probably
>>544171
If we are, then we will make one in future too, and then the guys in this universe we created will create one more universe and so on, so it really doesnt matter because our gods could be in a simulation aswell. just fucking accept it if its real and nothing matters in the end

>>544435
interesting stuff. thanks anon

>>544433
>physics is more than just simulating some blocks falling down stairs or water particles flooding through a door

Obviously we don't need all the minor physics details. Just the ones that operate on a broader scale (ie compounds interacting with each other). Computers cannot and never will be able to do this anyway because even that requires too much computing power that isn't possible (arguably the way we structure silicon chips is also the issue)

>>544463
>>544433
>tfw you watch a movie and the higgs-boson is slightly off

>>544491
kek

>>544433
We don't even know the exact properties of the subatomic particles or how they behave under different quantum states, let alone have no idea about the ones we haven't even discovered yet.

Although there are patterns in nature that resonate on bigger scales and thats what physics simulation tries to imitate. Although technically speaking we will never ever be able to repoduce accurate physical simulations of reality itself.

>>544519
>Although technically speaking we will never ever be able to repoduce accurate physical simulations of reality itself.
never say never dork

>>544327
Guys you replied to.
Sure silicon chips are hitting a wall soon. Carbon nanotubes are the new thing. Chk it up.

>>544433
We are talking about graphics for entertainment not computation for science. We just have to trick the human eyes not simulate atomic interaction.
That being said, never say never. 50 yrs from now human will have either killed the whole planet or reached levels that can't possibly be predicted right now. Dont be that guy who cant only see beyond the horizon of his own life span. That what got our entire species in the mess we are.

>>544548
That's cool as fuck

>>544551
Nah none of it's possible. No evidence

>>544583
You're wrong

Good thread

File: tarkin-vader.jpg (20KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 570x380px

Seeing the CGI remake of Tarkin in Rogue One made me realize that we are still way off every making humans that don't fall into the uncanny valley (if ever)

Such a shame

The CGI aliens looked even worse

File: 1475124098654.png (114KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 250x250px

>>544392
its not just about the animation/physics
the fact is that when things are animated, we get a lot more information about the subject vs a still image, so we can spot even more discrepencies between that thing and the real thing (spec/gloss properties, color variations, IOR, scattering, etc.)

>>544697 is a good example. You could CGI the shit out of Tarking and people will think it's an old picture of Peter Cushing. The second you animate it, things go wrong because you see all the non-human subtleties in the eyes, mucles, skin shading, hair, etc. Way harder to spot those things with a still image.

File: 1481192813488.jpg (105KB, 497x335px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 497x335px

>>544194
I don't think you understand the art direction of Tin Tin.

>>544713
Will animations ever make it anon?

>>544733
No

>>544697
Tarkin looked really really bad. Skin textures and lighting were way off and his face moved pretty slowly

How did they think it was passable or maybe that's the best we can do?

>>544172
Not even edgy, just theories

>>544889
>mocap
I can't wait until this meme ends.

AI will play a fundamental role in creating realistic animations when we can emulate proper physics. So will "realistic and complete bone+muscle systems".

>>544851
You speak like if most VFX (analog or digital) shots in any film ever were perfect. Sure that Tarkin, and especially Leila were a bit cringe worthy, but if you think back, Yoda in the original trilogy was similarly bad. He was only able to muppets level movement, but you still accepted it and didn't complained much. (Or if you did, then you aren't looking films for entertainment, but to nitpick, or better: learn some about this stuff).

It's a perpetually evolving field, which wouldn't really go forward much if they'd keep their work for themselves until it's perfectly perfect. And the bet is still on about the possibility of recreating humans digitally anyway without the uncanny valley.

Although it might have been better, if they had shown some more restraint, and did less closeups, but that's also about giving them weight. Keeping to that reflection of Tarkin on the windows and similar ways might have been a more elegant solution.

>>544890
>calls mocap a meme
>talks about AI
ayy

>>544906
I think they can do better than that. I've seen hyper-realistic CGI stills that look better than Tarkin. It's not the best we can do

>>544911
>AI
>meme

top kek

>>544953
>I've seen hyper-realistic CGI stills
>stills

yeah, that's the thing, just read this >>544713

>>544995
Even in stills tarkin looked bad

>>545006
This

>>544173

>when

When people are willing to pay for it.

If you spend so much money to produce something that it costs as much as doing it practical, what's the point?

>>545069
the learning experience, innovation, future works

>>545071
This.

Also, it gets cheaper after the initial R&D costs

File: smile_net.webm (304KB, 538x322px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 538x322px

>>544697
why didn't they just used something like this?

https://youtu.be/ohmajJTcpNk

>>545104
Isn't it the same thing? Aren't they remodelling the head or at least the mouth region?

>>544173
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

>>545118
thats a good vid but what am i meant to learn from it exactly?

>>545105
taking real footage and just altering the facial expressions, using mocap with the new dialogue must be a much simpler and better looking solution given the limitations of nowadays technology

>>545163
CG already surpassed practical FX but it's only as good as the people who work on it

>>544173
>I am saying that CGI IS better than practical effects because it can literally do whatever the artist wants (even if the artist wants a practical effects effect) BUT i am asking WHEN will we get to that point?
It's at that point now, just because J.K Rowling shat out a low budget pile of crap probably with pajeet CGI doesn't mean CGI is bad or not up to the task

The CGI looked shit in the other harry potter movies btw it's just you were a child at the time and didn't notice