That's Obviously CGI!

The second video was great! It got real good about half way through. All of the furniture, landscapes, nature and especially the detail of the camera itself were highly impressive. I woulda been fooled on all of that..

BUT..
One thing that CGI still hasn't mastered even in this video is human movement. The movement of the "photographer" was obvious. (fake)

Perhaps in a few more years once that part is down to an art, reality will start getting really confusing lol.

Edit: S&F

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Wookiep
BUT..
One thing that CGI still hasn't mastered even in this video is human movement. The movement of the "photographer" was obvious.

Do you mean the movement looked really fake or really real?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Sorry I didn't clarify that...it looked obviously fake to me.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Wookiep]

reply to post by Wookiep


I really hate to do this.... but the photographer that looked fake is one of the few elements in the film that isn't cgi.

You can read the director of the films comments here It's about 1/6th the way down the page but I will quote it as it isn't very long

I think i must make it clear. There are a few non-CG elements in the shortfilm: photographer (shot on greenscreen), pigeons, timelapsed growing flowers, flying airplane and sky backgrounds.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Sorry I didn't clarify that...it's looked obviously fake to me.

Yeah erm the photographer was one of the few elements that was actually real which proves what i was saying i suppose I know someone else pointed that out but it's why i asked you to clarify your statement

[edit on 30-8-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by Wookiep

 

I really hate to do this.... but the photographer that looked fake is one of the few elements in the film that isn't cgi.

You can read the director of the films comments here It's about 1/6th the way down the page but I will quote it as it isn't very long

I think i must make it clear. There are a few non-CG elements in the shortfilm: photographer (shot on greenscreen), pigeons, timelapsed growing flowers, flying airplane and sky backgrounds.

LOL well I'm truly stumped! Thanks for making it clear. I wonder why it looks fake to me?!?

Edit: although slightly embarassed now... .. I think by displaying my obvious ignorance, I have proven the OP's point!

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Wookiep
Edit: although slightly embarassed now...

.. I think by displaying my obvious ignorance, I have proven the OP's point!

Not really. You're just able to detect elements that get filtered-out or mildly altered in the transfer into the CGI world. You get queued that something is off about the scene. I did mention this briefly but incompletely.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Wookiep
Edit: although slightly embarassed now...

.. I think by displaying my obvious ignorance, I have proven the OP's point!

Not really. You're just able to detect elements that get filtered-out or mildly altered in the transfer into the CGI world. You get queued that something is off about the scene. I did mention this briefly but incompletely.

I think it's more likely that a real object in an artificial environment may give little fluctuations so you know the object is out of place (or the environment is depending on your stance). However those little fluctuations will be gone soon enough. Even better if the photographer had indeed been artificial maybe he would have blended in a lot better.

Those are pretty cool. I think the reason why the live action stuff in the modeled environment may seem odd or look fake is that it's a composited image on a 2D plane with alpha. An old graphics trick that usually works, but all it takes is one little mismatch in lighting or shadow to throw it off. (Compositing can be hard.) I'll still admit that guy is really good with lighting on the most part, and that's why his stuff is quite convincing.

I could only wish for that kind of patience though. I usually run out of steam way before then. Still, with only 3 hours on something with an open source modeler and using a low-budget rendering software, I can get this:

a.imageshack.us...

Even a 3D model as simple as that has some people convinced, and that's me being lazy and only using procedural textures and leaving many model details out.

Now picture that with a full day's work put in: painted UV texture maps with labels and a few dings and scratches, and put in scene with a fitting environment and the right lighting. It really could be hard to judge from a photo, and doing that is not really beyond the average person. (Well, at least those who do some CG every now and then.)

So with a bit more manpower or hours put in and a good render engine it really is getting harder to pick out CGI from real stuff - at least if those creating the effects or art want it that way.

Originally posted by pauljs75
a.imageshack.us...

Even a 3D model as simple as that has some people convinced, and that's me being lazy and only using procedural textures and leaving many model details out.

That doesn't look like reel film at all....nyuk, nyuk!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I'm sorry, but I have to inform you that BOTH videos are really *real.* You think they are CGI and try to pass them off as fakes only to destroy the true magical nature of our world. But, I'm on to you now and will expose your debunking.

Just kidding. Wonderful stuff here. Thanks.

Good thread

I dabbled in maya for a bit....very realistic 3d software....in the right hands cgi is very easy to achieve

I couldnt help but post a couple of vids made using autodesk products....truely amazing skills and excellent examples of how good cgi is now days


www.youtube.com... cant get this one to work so heres a link to another excellent video ( cgi )

These programs are available for all so theres no wonder theres a lot of cgi fake vids out there involving pretty much every conspiracy lol