When do you think budget CG will improve to the point where it

>>15527413

I'm still not sure why people get bent out of shape about noticing that CG is obvious personally. Especially on a board that's comfortable with recommending plenty of old shows with questionable animation or practical effects. It's not like you watch a lot of the practical effects and go "wow, I can't believe there are actually bug men to fill those parts". Just because something is obviously not real doesn't make it bad.

>>15527413
Never, budget has nothing to do with it. CG will never look natural because it isn't. No matter how high quality it gets, looking like reality when placed next to reality is a physical impossibility. The best you can hope for is that the audience has poor eyesight.

>>15527420
Obvious CG is ugly because it's too uniform in scenes where you'd lose some detail normally such as when a character turns its head. The models are usually too lacking in detail to make things like that look good.

>>15530211

Again, so what? Practical effects and animation/art are often ugly as well. Ugly in a different, and often less uniform manner, but ugly all the same. I just can't understand why people so willing to overlook that ugliness suddenly have a problem when it's CG.

File: [Over-Time] GARO - Flower of Makai - 04 [D213ABAF].mkv_snapshot_19.37_[2016.05.03_18.26.04].jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>15527420
>>15530223
>showa Kamen Rider looks goofy by modern standards so that means all practical effects are exactly the same as CGI
Spoilers: it's not the 70s anymore and there's been plenty of tokusatsu with good suits and practical effects, so it's both jarring and disappointing when the focus shifts to some PS1-tier CGI.

>>15527413
does she gives birth to that thing?

>>15530259

Oh, it's that one guy who keeps saying everything ever made in CG looks like a PS1 game. Never mind.

>>15530223
How old are you?

>>15530273

34, what has my age got to do with anything?

>>15530169
Except those marvel ones can use some pretty good cgi though, it really is a matter of budget

>>15530267
Nah, but she serves as its mother since she was there when it hatched.

>>15530385
It's not a matter of whether they look good, they don't look REAL and never can. Look at Hulk standing next to Thor. It's clear one is real and one is not actually there.

What if CG stays at this level for a long period of time, for cost effectiveness? For example, what if Toei uses the same tools for rendering CG 10 years from now, just because their current output is passable for HDTV?

>>15534217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

>>15534813
Not even gonna watch that just based on the title. I never once said that CG sucked, only that it will never blend with reality. I have to assume that video has no relevence. If you have a point to make please make it yourself.

>>15527413
I thought this guy was gonna say it >>15530169 but then it just turned into shit posting.

But stuff like Rider and Sentai don't have the rendering time for good looking stuff. They have to get that shit out weekly, and constantly make new models that might only show up like once. It's not a matter of budget. It's a matter of not having enough rendering time.

It's like people thinking budget matters for anime when in fact it's just the amount of time they have to work on a scene. Like say episode 34 of a Precure is a big important fight episode, they'll work on that months before they work on episode 33 or 32. There's a reason the amount of time it took to make Redline is the meme and not the budget.

File: lettermantechroom.jpg (758KB, 2999x1000px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 2999x1000px

>>15534773
>>15530385
Actually, in part with rendering time, there is some budget issues kinda because, and I'm fairly sure none of you here realize it. But to get good special effects you need renderingfarms.
Lots and lots and lots of computers needed just for rendering CGI and even with all of them it takes FAR TOO LONG TO RENDER for a weekly action show.
Here's what Pixars looks like.

>>15536115
When I say budget I mean everything included needed to make decent CGI, like the army of programmers along with computers and everything, something like that for a weekly tv show would be fucking retarded and just economic suicide for them

>>15536154
You don't really need a army of programmers. If you have the right rendering software and a rendering farm what Toei has now could probably do it.
If they wanted to spend like two months rendering one episode to look like a multimillion dollar movie instead of, like, what I think toei only spends like a week rendering shit now? I forget it was mentioned in a /m/ thread back when Gaim was airing. It doesn't seem like it's improved.
The point is we have this thread all the time and it's always because OP is too ignorant to look up how CGI is actually made.

File: Lost_Soul_Beast_Garo_(anime).jpg (99KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x720px

>>15527413
CG will never not look obvious and out of place. There is shit that cannot look real no matter how many shaders you use or how well you sculpt it. Spider-Man and the Hulk are always going to look fake because people can't fucking do that. Giant robots are always going to look fake because they don't exist. It's all cartoons. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

If you're actually asking "When will TV special effects look as good as movie special effects?" the answer is eventually. Remember how bad movie CG was in the early 90s? Time is the great equalizer as far as technology is concerned. unless you're Toei and trying to do things as cheaply as possibly

>>15536166
Rider sentai still looks better to me than anything I've seen in The Flash

File: 1485395980692.jpg (177KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 500x500px

>>15527420
There's a concept called the "uncanny valley". It happens when there's a discrepancy in what your eyes are seeing and what your brain is interpreting. The flaws in the CG that tell us it is fake is then contrasted against the filmed elements. So, we subconsciously interpret the CG, not as a special effect doing an admirable job trying to look natural, but as a natural thing doing a terrible job at being natural.

>>15536083
You have a very good point.