Gep Malakai wrote:
3D Master wrote:
When you write something like, "Why are you called 3D Master when you hate 3D?", is not being confused, it's being a dick.
But you do. Your posts and your attitudes make crystal clear your loathing for modern VFX techniques and, by proxy, all who would enjoy them. Your posts are long-winded rationalizations for your anger; even the staff have called you out on it in the past. That you would also put a reference to your crusade in your username boggles my mind.
And there you go again deliberately miss-representing what I've said.
Nowhere, EVER did say ANYTHING about modern VFX techniques. Quite the contrary, I've spoke praise about monster effects, and effects when on the ground and interacting with humans. I've said dinosaurs (of Jurassic Park) look great.
This rather the EXACT OPPOSITE of loathing modern VFX techniques, but we'll just once again claim the exact opposite of what I've been saying.
I've also said that we've had this flat, 2D, cartoony look for ships, all the way back since Star Wars in 1977. Ever since ol' George told his VFX designers, that they didn't have to create realistic lighting, and just show the ships nicely bright and fully visible because it was only a fantasy movie, we've been stuck with completely wrongly lit space ships that bleed out all depth from them. THAT is VERY OLD VFX, once AGAIN showing that new VFX, has NOTHING to do with it.
In fact I've been sayig these two things, again, and again, and again, and again, again, again,againagainagian,andagain.
But you know, keep deliberately miss representing what I said.
In fact, I've said, and I believe it is this thread it was in, or one with the same subject, when I brought up the pictures of models versus (fan-made) CGI, and asked if you could identify which were models and which were CGI that CGI is capable of producing far more impressive starships in movies than models ever could. The problem of course is, that we're still stuck with Star Wars' "show the cool, brightly light them" pradigm, which produces the opposite. But again, got NOTHING to do with modern VFX; it's that space ship paradigm that's the problem.
But you know, keep deliberately miss-representing what I said, it's fun, since moderators don't bother with such, especially not when you have them on your side.
I've quickly thrown a scene together with Prologic
's Enterprise-D and some very simple lighting.
Damn, I wish I were better at this.
Now here we go, here we've got something that is a lot better than virtually all movie and TV show effects toward implying this is an actual 3D object.
1. The ship isn't brightly lit. There parts you can barely see in the dark, thus you have actual shadows working (even though some of them are rather wrong, over all they are much better to imply that this is an actual object.)
2. The composition of the picture and implied moved of the ship is also great. The saucer close and looming, with motion blur to the left, with the stardrive in the back and the angle to partially cover and partially highlight the neck, all are shown to enhance the the idea that this is an actual object, a real 3D ship.
The main problems are the following:
1. The contrast is far too sharp, most notably between lit and unlit sections. Unlit sections are instantly unlit having their own color, while the colored lights are very bright yet have no effect on the material around them.
2. Too smooth shadows and materials, but this could be a computer power issue. Real material and thus shadows and light that falls on it has texture to it.
3. Ooh, how shiny and reflective it all looks! This seems to be a style that is in favor ever since Doom3 did it. In that game, even skin, dark skin even, reflecting light like it was surrounded by water, or was made up of polished to reflection stone or something. Look around your house, very little surface area actually reflects. And if something reflects, it does so only slightly. Only mirrors and naked metal may reflect quite high, and that's only may, it only happens at certain angles. A starship that has a coat of pain on it, should look like it is reflecting light like a mirror nearly everywhere. (This in fact, is part of the texture part. Light doesn't reflect nice and smooth and easy, because a material isn't nice and smooth and easy.)
But at the end of the line, the things that this picture did right, does a lot more to show this as having 3-dimensions, than the bad things detract from it.