Better Than 35mm

David Jimerson said:
BTW, I'm increasingly hostile to overdone CGI. There's something soulless about it.
Click to expand...


Yes David, but behind that door lies the open space of the soul.
Or didn't you watch the whole trailer?

:)

You know, they could really pull off a photorealistic CGI movie, as long as they didn't have to include people in it...or animals...or basically anything alive.
 
That looks like a pretty cool project. Using CGi for a holocaust story, that's a new twist. Obviously it's not real, but I think it's compelling because there's something real and unreal about it.

I remember seeing something similar on the history channel using CGi with WWII characters. It was eerie and mesmerizing at the same time.

I wouldn't call this better than 35mm. Too bad, the title of this thread overshadows what looks like a very ambitious and interesting project.
 
callan said:
Really? I thought that looked shitty. Animation is mainly about broad strokes, not the nuance of a barely moving face. Realistic characters always ends up feeling stiff and boring (ie: final fantasy etc.) Good CG = The incredibles etc. Broad strokes. They have their moments of subtlety, but if you don't use what animation is best at, why animate it?
Click to expand...
I agree completely. This feels like animation for the sake of saying it was done with animation. It's very pretty, and very detailed, but it looks too stiff in the movement. Especially when she blinks and looks toward the window.

One thing, though. "Final fantasy" was boring because it was a bad script. The animation was stiff, but would have been easily forgiven had the story been engaging. As opposed to "Last Flight of the Osiris" (the animation was better, but still stiff) which I thought was engaging because of it's story. "The Incredibles" was awesome, even though nobody was trying to do photorealistic anything. It's all about the script.

I'm all for pushing an art form into new territory, and would be interested in seeing this complete film. But it seems like they're spending an awful lot of money on something that could have been made with real actors for a lot less... Who knows? Maybe they had a total budget of $1.00. In that case, my hat's off to them!
 
The CG itself is nice, but not overwhelming. It's the animation that really kills it. Even the "handheld" camera look isn't animated all that well. Maybe the full version would be more impressive, but the trailer isn't all too much. The King Kong trailer is more impressive.
 
OK, I'm gonna take a stab at puting this the right way:

Whenever I see a computer animation this detailed, it actually makes me feel more detached from the characters. It feels like the characters are realistic, but not real enough. There's a line that get crossed where it's close to real life but just doesn't pass muster.

Films like The Incredibles are more engaging. Sure the characters aren't hyper-realistic, but that actually helps. That subtle "something not quite right" feeling doesn't nibble at the back of my brain like it does with films like the first Final Fantasy film or the Flight of the Osiris segment in the Animatrix.

The look is great. I just don't think the performance will be there though. Maybe if I see the whole thing I will be delightfully surprised. But so far that hasn't happened yet.
 
MojoTrancer said:
Whenever I see a computer animation this detailed, it actually makes me feel more detached from the characters. It feels like the characters are realistic, but not real enough. There's a line that get crossed where it's close to real life but just doesn't pass muster.

Films like The Incredibles are more engaging. Sure the characters aren't hyper-realistic, but that actually helps. That subtle "something not quite right" feeling doesn't nibble at the back of my brain like it does with films like the first Final Fantasy film or the Flight of the Osiris segment in the Animatrix.

The look is great. I just don't think the performance will be there though. Maybe if I see the whole thing I will be delightfully surprised. But so far that hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...


That's exactly how I feel.
While it may be a great achievement in CG, does it really achieve what we hope to get out of a film?

Reminds me of a bad portrait you might see a beginning artist do.
Good enough so you can tell who it's supposed to be, but not good enough to actually look like them.

This leaves me feeling the same way.
 
You're describing the "uncanny valley" which has been documented effect and I agree totally with what it says and what you guys are saying.

I'm calling BS on this one, by the way. The trailer shows two or three shots of decent but startlingly limited CG. There are no quick motions, and the camera tilts cover the mediocre character animation. I mean, it looks fine, but ILM and Pixar can animate a gajillion times better and more naturalistically. The hair and cloth are okay but they're surprisingly not that "dynamic." The textures are nice but overlit and the bump maps are anything but subtle. It's good CG work, and of course it's better than I could do. I find it hilarious that when people are skeptical of "the best CG ever" and "better than 35mm" people ask them to do better. Oh sure, I'll go singlehandedly with next to no experience in CGI make something better in a couple minutes than what took a whole team of experts months and months....absurd.

Also, none of the "cast" and "crew" are listed on IMDB. And there isn't a word of dialogue, just a little foley work and some music and cheesy titles.

Also, how exploitive is a movie "starring" Anne Frank and Emily Dickinson? I'm sorry, but that's a cheesy way to demand attention. Take some tragic figures, one linked to the holocaust, one linked to canonical poetry and no one wants to question you. Look at the "cast." Absurd.

I'm sure (well, I hope) someone has good intentions with this one, but I think it's a hoax to get our attention, and apparently it's working. On one hand, congrats to whoever made this (or what group made it) because it looks like it's an impressive piece of low budget filmmaking. But "better than 35mm" "the best CG ever" "starring Anne Frank?" Absurd, really....
 
I agree the trailer isn't that good...
and i dont know about the story, but the image looks fantastic.
I stiil find it is amazing for CGI.
 
this is no better than final fantasy: the spirits within in my opinion. Also I don't see the point in 'real' looking cgi movies. Isn't it better to just see and use real people and locations? I understand that it may be cool to be able to 'resurrect' historic figures to play themselves in a film, but really, i think that is ruining the magic of cinema. It's like the argument against cloning...when you can control everything, and there is no longer imperfection, what then is the point of being a human? movies are special because of their interpretation of reality, and the room for our suspended belief. toy story, finding nemo and the like are where i think cgi movies should stay. leave acting to humans.
 
hmm, this is not an Indie feature,

quote

"team of 60 artists who have all worked on major productions: from “Star Wars” to “Harry Potter”

So these are probably the same guys from, ILM and pixar :)

The point in using CGI here I guess is re-create a "Lost World"

The title is just me being jokey, chill guys :)

But in a techincal way CGI can easly be better than 35mm, what size frame do you want to render is up to you, 2k? 4K? 6K?? , heck 12K?? colour depth, what 12bit, 14bit, 32bit etc (you get the idea)

Anhar
 
I feel kind of sick after watching that. Anyone who creates CG characters of dead people are sick. I sure hope it's a hoax, because... well.. it's creepy.
 
directinglegend said:
I feel kind of sick after watching that. Anyone who creates CG characters of dead people are sick. I sure hope it's a hoax, because... well.. it's creepy.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's any sicker than making up an actor to look like that person in a live action film. How many historical films have we seen where actors are portraying real people? Generally, those are not considered sick.

I personally didn't find it sick, just sort of emotionless and cold. But that's due to the CG work, not the fact that Anne Frank is dead.
 
Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinion but I'm surprised how quickly some can just jump up and nix a production like this without giving it a chance. Sometimes the story will outweigh any shortcomings in the CGI. Why does it have to top everything that has preceded it?

I believe that naysayers are only limiting their own experience with cynicism. But, then again, that's just my opinion and who says I know anything? :engel017:
 
disjecta said:
Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinion but I'm surprised how quickly some can just jump up and nix a production like this without giving it a chance.
Click to expand...
I for one was commenting on the trailer, and the quality and emotional impact of it.
I don't think people are dogging the entire production as much as the presentation of the trailer (I would hope).
Why does it have to top everything that has preceded it?
Click to expand...
Well, given the title "Better than 35mm" (which was meant to be somewhat of a joke) I think it's fair for people to discuss whether or not it's the 'next big thing.'
I mean, the thread was posted with the intent of discussing the quality of the CG work, not the quality of the story.

But, you're right. In the end it's the content that will decide whether or not something works (regardless of the technology behind it). And in this case, we don't have much to go on to make any sort of judgement.
 
I suppose one way of looking at this is that at one point many years ago, many people were saying that video would have no place in feature films. The quality was not good enough, it was too real, doesn't have the magic of film. To a certain extent that is still true but HiDef video has made some progress into the mainstream. So, who's to say in 20 years we don't have some pretty incredible CGI films/actors. I know it seems like a pipedream at this point, but the way technology is being developed at such a rapid pace, it wouldn't be shocking to see it get to the point that these digital actors had a striking resemblance to their human counterparts. Just like Hi-Def video now, the films may not achieve the Magic that film seems to have but maybe they'll come pretty damn close or maybe they'll become somewhat of a unique experience, maybe more interactive.

As for what I saw, it was too little to make a judgement call on and it's being displayed in a small format so details may be getting lost. Much better for me to make a judgement after watching on the big screen.

Steve
 
I do a little animation work for TV commercials, where I mix live actors and 3D characters I create using max. I use the DVX for these Spots. I guess some of u guys are right, When you make superrealistic characters in CGI we, the viewer, raise the bar by comparing it with the real human actor, and TODAY, Cgi simply cannot mimic YET, the subtle nuances of the actors face, especially the muscles around the eyes. We loose track of the story because we become disturbed by the stiffness and emotionless eyes of the "actor". Whereas on the other hand, when the animation is NOT intended to be realistic, such as the incredibles, we disregard immediately our judging the charcters realism and 'accept' the character and focus on the story instead. This allows us to enjoy the distortions and exagerations inthe animation, the very things realistic animation throw out to remain 'realistic'. As a producer for ADs and AVPs I would still use realistic characters as 'spices and seasoning' to my dinner and not "main course".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top