Why the fuck does this CG Dinosaur from 1993 look better

>>82507242
less is more

it doesn't

File: 1493550959462.jpg (56KB, 583x435px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 583x435px

>>82507282

File: cgi.jpg (465KB, 1064x1064px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1064x1064px

>1993
>make a movie with 12 CGI shots
>maybe 4 of them were the T-Rex?
>spend a year making them look great
>WOW, IT LOOKS SO REAL

>2017
>make a movie with 684 CGI shots
>you have less than 6 months to animate and render them all
>wow, this CGI looks like crap

it really doesnt

its just your nostalgia and having very poorly lit scenes

File: N7aiOyE.gif (992KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 500x281px

>>82507614

>>82507661
Are you blind?

Most shots in the original JP make it almost difficult to tell when it was the anaimatronic or CG

cgi looks bad, but the puppets obviously don't. Its the seamless transition of stan winston's puppets and the cgi with the dark light in this particular scene

however, the rest aren't impressive and most are basically puppets and man-in-suits

>>82507614
in other words: gotten too dumb to do proper CGI

>>82507242
>1993
>Use Supercomputers to render CGI
>Spend 6 HOURS to render each frame to ensure the model bends in seamlessly into the background
>Expensive tedious process so practical effects are preferred whenever possible.
>Take as much time as needed to make your movie a masterpiece

>20xx
>Desktop computer powerful enough to render CGI
>Spend only a few seconds/minutes rendering frames because the entire movie contains CGI
>Cheaper to use CGI than practical effects
>Movies are rushed out as fast as they can possible

>>82507242
It's pretty simple to look at the OP image and see, they payed attention to the shot they are inserting the dinosaur into. They paid attention to the lighting and how it is cast on the objects in the scene. The Trex's back reflects light similar to the ground due to the wetness.

Another thing they took into account is the heaviness of a real dinosaur. He takes these big, heaving steps. The way he throws his weight around were deliberately done Each individual step and the vibrations become signature of the movie (the glass of water).

Current movies: shits rushed and everything is made of rubber, characters and animals make weird irregular movements and do cartoony shit to get the scene to happen. Like everyone said, shit is rushed and theres too many cooks. Animators probably spent more time learning how to use their software fast than how to properly animate figures.

Isn't much of cgi work exported to china and shit where ex WoW gold farmers crunch to get the shit out and onto the next job for 4 dollars an hour? Thought i read that.

>>82509382
Wow gold farmers actually make close to 10 cents an hour

They even force prisoners to do it over there

>>82507242
>Jurassic Park

Animated by stop motion artists.

>Current CG

Animated by "animators", so everything is cartoony and hyper-detailed.


I hate when CG artist include nods to cartoon animation, like the "delayed jaw movement" in order to make it look more detailed, rich and "natural" when the true is it make it look cartoony, campy and too busy.

>>82508161
>bends in

>>82507614
You realize the top is makeup and not CGI, right?

>>82509938
>nitpicking spelling errors
Was was wrong about my statement?

>>82507242
part of it's real and everything now is fake.

>>82509976
That's the point.

>>82507242
what video game is this

>>82510019
>Was was

File: tumblr_inline_nqxk67zHFs1rn0ebd_1280.png (821KB, 1119x627px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 1119x627px

It's not CGI you fucking idiot

>>82510073
>kissing the point

>>82507242
I don't know how this keeps getting asked, giving a rocket to a retard doesn't make him an astronaut.

>>82507242
480p

>>82510150

What about that time Slingblade did it?

>>82507242
Did you forget the gallimimus scene? That aged horribly and was one of the longer CGI scenes.

>T-rex couldn't weigh more than a large elephant or two
>physically shakes the ground with every step it takes

>>82510256
That was a fluke, shut up.

>>82510336
have you been next to an elephant IRL?

no you haven't. the earth echos

>>82507242

It doesnt look better than current CGI.

It still somewhat holds up, because of the rain.

>>82510336
Ya leaving that part out would've been super fun

>>82510336
they were on a dam or something tho

>>82510104
>the obviously cgi shot isn't cgi
>as he posts the practical rex with no fucking legs even though the obviously cgi rex has its legs fully in frame

>>82507242
The CGI is significantly worse, it's just used better. The dinosaur is established with animatronics first, then the dodgy CGI is hidden in rain and darkness.

>>82507242
>1993
>CGI for movie

>2017
>Movie for CGI

File: 1284250951281719874.jpg (108KB, 800x455px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x455px

>>82507719
>IT HOLDS UP PERFECTLY

>>82507242
low levels of lighting, and you really don't see A LOT of the dinosaur all things considered

plus the movie doesn't have THAT much CGI compared to most modern films

File: maxresdefault.jpg (131KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x720px

>>82507719
>IT TOTALLY LOOKS RECENTLY MADE

File: maxresdefault.jpg (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

>>82507719
>CUTTING EDGE

>>82507242
a few reasons:

-Winston and Spielberg were smart enough to know that mixing practical and CGI would help audiences believe the CGI scenes more readily. Hence why the two approaches are frequently intercut together.
-Really good practical dinos built and operated by people that knew what they were doing.
-Nighttime and rain can help mask CGI limitations.
-Spielberg was an established director and was probably given all the time and money he needed to do the dino shots right.
-The CGI models and movement were built using real life animal references and stop motion models animated by guys that understood how animals should move IRL.
-Humans in 1993 (and today really) had no mental reference for how a dinosaur should move or sound. Sure we had an idea of how they should look from years of illustrations, but they had nothing to compare it to. One didn't know how a dinosaur was supposed to move. Add in some excellent sound design and the final product becomes even more believable.

tl;dr Spielberg is a smart guy with a ton of studio support and used old school film techniques to realistically present new CGI tech.

>>82510660
>>82510691
>>82510717
i hope these weren't supposed to prove your point

they look fine, and great in motion

>>82507282
I kind of agree. It still looks pretty damn good for being in the early 90s, but you can definitely tell it's CGI.

>>82510660
>>82510691
>>82510717
are these posts supposed to be ironic?
the CG is fine

>>82510660
>>82510691
>>82510717
Still better than Marvel's CGI

>>82510814
The only way you can tell is because dinosaurs don't exist anymore.

>>82510691
this raptor looks better than any creature in guardians of the galaxy.

File: 569914ea9b25268eb2b7654f393d7c93.jpg (46KB, 720x304px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x304px

>>82510660
>>82510691
>>82510717
>my friend here says the CG looks fine

>>82510660
Any pics of the sisters dirty ass fir cgi color comparison?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (93KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x720px

>>82510879
>>82510951
>>82511061
>>82510786
>the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

File: Screen_Shot_2016-04-07_at_7.51.16_AM.0.0.jpg (136KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1200x800px

>>82510786
>>82510814
>>82510879
>>82510951
>>82511061
>Rosy retrospection refers to the psychological phenomenon of people sometimes judging the past disproportionately more positively than they judge the present. The Romans occasionally referred to this phenomenon with the Latin phrase "memoria praeteritorum bonorum", which translates into English roughly as "the past is always well remembered". Rosy retrospection is very closely related to the concept of nostalgia. The difference between the terms is that rosy retrospection is a cognitive bias, whereas the broader phenomenon of nostalgia is not necessarily based on a biased perspective.

>>82507242
Because Stan Winston is dead.

>>82507242
Because it's manipulation. It's at night and it's in the rain. Of course it's going to look okay. Put that shit in broad daylight and it's going to look passable at best.