How is CGI from 1993 still the best we have ever seen?

>>87493101
Because they uses animatronics for part of it and filled in the rest with cgi. Practical effects used in combination with CGI always yield the best results.

That's not Starship Troopers.

That was an animatronic/practical, silly.

No, it was CGI kino

>>87493101
That was a real dinosaur.

perfect lighting

davy jones

>>87493101
Because its filmed in dark and rainy conditions and the close up shots are all done with an animatronic.

Because they respected the new medium and mixed it with primary physical effects.

>>87493101
it's a bunch of cats strung together. Movies are really magic.

>>87493101
Mostly shown at night, or not well lit and or during rain. Shown from a distance, or only partially shown. Never on screen for more than a few seconds. No over the top curayzee shots with tons of bad animation.

It's easier to make CGI look real when you basically just hide how bad it looks. These days, CGI is on screen for prolonged periods, tons of awkward animations,well lit, etc.it actually does look betternow,but they don't try to hide it as much, so it seems to look worse.

Or something like that.

File: jurassic-park.jpg (261KB, 720x450px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 720x450px

>>87493101
>cgi

File: rtuk_feature_renderman_02.jpg (97KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x360px

The actual CGI scenes have aged like basically all 90's CGI, like milk

>>87494812
That looks great though

>>87493174
No shit, the effects were shit.

>>87494403
this

>>87494830
It looks worse in motion, and even as a still it looks way too much like it was cut and paste from a computer into the scene

>>87494769
Implying OP's image was shot using the animatronic.

>>87493101
It's blended in decently enough.

>>87493164

Also they hid the CG under rain, fog, and darkness.

Drax jumping into the monster is some great CG I've seen recently.

https://youtu.be/YZZBZPzAk4A

File: Screen-Shot-2017-05-16-at-8.07.35-AM.jpg (156KB, 1074x685px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1074x685px

No

Jurassic Park use it how its suppose to be used, mixed in with practical effects

>>87495083

Oh shit that does look good.

>>87493164
>>87493194
>>87494769
the T-rex is fully CGI in the shot OP posted, as are all the dinosaurs in full-body motion shots.

this is your cue to now baselessly assert that no, it's not CGI, or that it's a combination of CGI and practical within one shot, even though it's plainly CGI when viewed in motion and doesn't move like any of the animatronic shots in the movie.

Now
>whole scenes made entirely with CGI
>CGI humans hitting each other across cities in a blurry mess of tiresome video game graphics

Then
>CGI when it was impossible any other way
>cut away ASAP, it's a "special effect"

>>87495062
That looked so fucking bad. The lighting was laughable and the guy jumping in looked photoshopped onto an already poor PS3 monster.

Cheap, cheap, cheap

File: main-qimg-18f816779e97f2c1a2e344584e86674c-c.jpg (56KB, 602x339px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 602x339px

>>87495260
instead I'll assert that for every shot you remember as being good there was a shot like this

and even the ones that are good looked good because they were basically all shot in dark inclement weather and were intermixed with the body suits and giant puppets

long story short it was incredible for it's time but if you think it meets current standards you need to take the nostalgia goggles off, because movies like >>87495062
>>87495083

absolutely blow it out of the water as they should with 25 years of tech and experience improvements

>>87495398
Cheap cheap cheap what a story
But it's like there is no stakes because everything is fake
They must be kidding us arent you

>>87495083
zug zug