You're deliberately missing the point.
You CAN see the difference. Something looks "off" on such images, and if you drop the chroma out the underlying cause is revealed in naked mismatched glory.
For Blu-Ray, will TMP have to have all new FX?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
You CAN see the difference. Something looks "off" on such images, and if you drop the chroma out the underlying cause is revealed in naked mismatched glory.
I don't study film for a living, and I've agreed with everything trevanian's said.
Does that mean I'm old and bitter?
If that was meant as an insult, it is among the nicest I've ever received (and better than a helluva lot of lip-service compliments.)
I was reading between the lines of ST-One. I could be mistaken though.
Seriously though, ST-One, what's the problem? If a color-blind man can tell that you painted a barn bright green instead of red, you don' fucked up, son.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So, you cannot tell us in detail why the images from Poseidon look more fake than a miniature shot.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I was reading between the lines of ST-One. I could be mistaken though.
I have perfectly healthy vision and to me these color-images from this 2006 Poseidon-movie look perfectly real.
I don't care what they look like once you start fiddeling with them.
Can YOU tell me what looks so fake about these pictures?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I don't study film for a living, and I've agreed with everything trevanian's said.
Does that mean I'm old and bitter?
Well, the only real visual difference between the original TMP-miniature and this CG-version is that the (larger) windows (unfortunately) lack the same depth (probably because they just illuminated the window-surfaces instead of putting some geometry behind them - but it safes time and isn't really noticable when animated/in motion)
I don't know how many more ways to explain it, and am thinking if I need to say a whole lot more you should be paying me for it.
If you can't see the difference in the luminosity (and if you can't see that cg geometry dropped behind windows usually looks WORSE than the bad white light window, even more lifeless, see VOYAGER and Lil ENT for examples), between most cg windows and a real-world or practical window, then you're not looking at it right. Sometimes in the real world you have a dead-white light (fluorescents in a building at night sometime look like this), but given the quality of the lights in the film sets, THOSE don't look flat and fluorescent, so the window views shouldn't either.
Again, look at the CONTRAST and the black level of a real world object (whether it is lit for a movie scene or not -- looking at reality would be as good an example here, probably better) and compare that with the painterly unmotivated detail in the shadows of most CG ...
BTW, you didn't comment on the SOLARIS fx, just the movie ... do YOU see a difference qualitatively between them and the stuff you've shown here in the thread? I'm thinking especially of the close-in docking shot, which just looks like NASA done in IMAX.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I don't study film for a living, and I've agreed with everything trevanian's said.
Does that mean I'm old and bitter?
Well, the only real visual difference between the original TMP-miniature and this CG-version is that the (larger) windows (unfortunately) lack the same depth (probably because they just illuminated the window-surfaces instead of putting some geometry behind them - but it safes time and isn't really noticable when animated/in motion)
I don't know how many more ways to explain it, and am thinking if I need to say a whole lot more you should be paying me for it.
If you can't see the difference in the luminosity (and if you can't see that cg geometry dropped behind windows usually looks WORSE than the bad white light window, even more lifeless, see VOYAGER and Lil ENT for examples), between most cg windows and a real-world or practical window, then you're not looking at it right. Sometimes in the real world you have a dead-white light (fluorescents in a building at night sometime look like this), but given the quality of the lights in the film sets, THOSE don't look flat and fluorescent, so the window views shouldn't either.
Again, look at the CONTRAST and the black level of a real world object (whether it is lit for a movie scene or not -- looking at reality would be as good an example here, probably better) and compare that with the painterly unmotivated detail in the shadows of most CG ...
BTW, you didn't comment on the SOLARIS fx, just the movie ... do YOU see a difference qualitatively between them and the stuff you've shown here in the thread? I'm thinking especially of the close-in docking shot, which just looks like NASA done in IMAX.
The Solaris VFX are phenomenal.
But not comparable to the TMP effect shots (miniature or CG).
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Please use this image
to show and explain what you are talking about, because - honestly - I don't understand it.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Light spilling from windows looks unilluminated, like somebody just put a brush stroke of white up there.
Sections of ship that aren't self-illuminated should probably fall off into darkness (unless there is a REALLY BIG full moon) rather than register so clearly.
I suppose I should get myself a picture editing program so I can diagram on the picture, but don't figure I'd need to do that too often.
I really think it is a matter of right tool for right job. CGI, ideally, does what you can't do in other ways. The late Richard Doc Baily did phenomenal particle work (subpixel stuff), and he did stuff that was stylized to some degree, but captivating anyway. He could do photoreal kinds of stuff, but always with something stylized added (at the director's behest, like the last scene in FIGHT CLUB.) I thought of him as a digital equivalent to Jordan Belson, a genuine artist.
I also think that in terms of adding atmospherics, CG is pretty handy (the stuff falling off the rocket in APOLLO 13.) And if you need your object to fly around in circles and do backflips in a single take, then CG works fine for ships, as long as you don't get too close.
But for ship beauty passes ... there is rarely any comparison. A hero miniature, well lit, like, say a lot of EVENT HORIZON, is hard to beat.
I think the mindset of do it all digital is a limiting one, because you trade quality for quantity. You do 2000 shots for 80 million dollars instead of perhaps doing 50 or 60 shots for somewhat less, but the shots hold up to scrutiny rather than functioning as eye candy.
Honestly, I don't see the economics or the storytelling reason for such insane numbers of fx shots, except for shows where you're doing a whole realm synthetically. There are a lot less shots in TUC (and somewhat less shots in TWOK) than NEM, but except for certain limitations of the times (and schedules), the older stuff looks better to me (and the miniature fx in GEN and FC look really good most of the time, and there aren't a zilliion of those either.
Sections of ship that aren't self-illuminated should probably fall off into darkness (unless there is a REALLY BIG full moon) rather than register so clearly.
I suppose I should get myself a picture editing program so I can diagram on the picture, but don't figure I'd need to do that too often.
I really think it is a matter of right tool for right job. CGI, ideally, does what you can't do in other ways. The late Richard Doc Baily did phenomenal particle work (subpixel stuff), and he did stuff that was stylized to some degree, but captivating anyway. He could do photoreal kinds of stuff, but always with something stylized added (at the director's behest, like the last scene in FIGHT CLUB.) I thought of him as a digital equivalent to Jordan Belson, a genuine artist.
I also think that in terms of adding atmospherics, CG is pretty handy (the stuff falling off the rocket in APOLLO 13.) And if you need your object to fly around in circles and do backflips in a single take, then CG works fine for ships, as long as you don't get too close.
But for ship beauty passes ... there is rarely any comparison. A hero miniature, well lit, like, say a lot of EVENT HORIZON, is hard to beat.
I think the mindset of do it all digital is a limiting one, because you trade quality for quantity. You do 2000 shots for 80 million dollars instead of perhaps doing 50 or 60 shots for somewhat less, but the shots hold up to scrutiny rather than functioning as eye candy.
Honestly, I don't see the economics or the storytelling reason for such insane numbers of fx shots, except for shows where you're doing a whole realm synthetically. There are a lot less shots in TUC (and somewhat less shots in TWOK) than NEM, but except for certain limitations of the times (and schedules), the older stuff looks better to me (and the miniature fx in GEN and FC look really good most of the time, and there aren't a zilliion of those either.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I found an article on your poseidon remake at http://www.ilmfan.com/articles/2006/willi_geiger_poseidon/ and was amazed to see Dan Piponi mentioned as one of the key cg guys. He did great stuff on the first MATRIX, and the many pics in this article really don't look as good as I would expect from a show with his involvement. Maybe they had too many shots to do to spend a lot of time to finesse? I just skimmed the piece, but it mentioned they split the renders into passes for the daylight shot, so they used the right technique ... but at least in still form, it doesn't look quite good enough. If I wasn't turned off by the character treatment in the poseidon remake (which sounded really bad to me), I'd be tempted to rent it just to see some of the other shots in motion ... maybe I'll check youtube, though the quality will not be enough to really tell.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I just don't see it that way...
There is a big full moon.
And neither of the light-sources on the ship itself are strong or big enough to 'blind' the camera enough so that it no longer can capture the ship in all its details.
You can see some portions of the freak-wave sequence in the trailer:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/poseidon/
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Of course it can.
The scene in the Poseidon-image is brighter, because there is a full moon.
^^^He wasn't talking about the brightness, he was talking about the qualities of black in the CGI image as opposed to the photography.
Frankly it's the lack of tonal range and the timidity of the shadows in a lot of CGI that gives it away to my eye. Too many CG artists bring the ambient fill up too high and it flattens the contrast in a way that's unnatural. It's not so much about the limitations of the technology and tools, but about how you use them.
Frankly it's the lack of tonal range and the timidity of the shadows in a lot of CGI that gives it away to my eye. Too many CG artists bring the ambient fill up too high and it flattens the contrast in a way that's unnatural. It's not so much about the limitations of the technology and tools, but about how you use them.
Last edited:
Indeed. I can't help but think that the problem is rooted in two things. First is that CGI artists didn't come up through the film process, so they don't have as strong a grasp of the cinematrography aspect like the Model/practical effects people did/do. Second is that they are proud of their work and don't want to see it "lost to the shadows".
Nothing, really, in and of themselves. They look good. But I'm totally opposed to tampering with classic films. They're a snapshot of the times they were created in.
This is a real ship (the Queen Mary 2 - upon which the Poseidon is based):
Now, comparing the two images, I can't see a significant difference between these 'lifeless' (your word) CG-windows and those of the real QM2...
This image has a 3-dimensional "real feel" to it. The other one you are refering to feels flat and lifeless. I don't have the tech knowledge to explain it but it is how I perceive the two images.
Sorry for the bumpage, but I want to say add by 2gp.
Please use this image
to show and explain what you are talking about, because - honestly - I don't understand it.
I specialize in lighting, rendering, and compositing.To me, it's just muddy. If those lights coming out of the windows were brighter compared to the darks in the image, it would pop a lot more. If the camera's exposure was set up so that you could actually see those dark parts of the ship, then any reasonable level of internal illumination would have areas that are blown out, and the spotlights on the side of the ship would be even more so.
Look at the difference in the level of brightness between the lifeboat area on the QM2 and of that on the Poseidon. On the QM2, it's very much blown out, and you can't see many details. On the Poseidon, it's not nearly as bright, and you can see every single detail.
When I light and composite my scenes, I try to have some parts of the image be completely blown out, and parts of it be completely in shadow. This level of contrast often gives the image a great deal of visual 'pop,' especially if mixed in with a bit of bloom coming off of the highlights (though not too much, because you risk heading back into muddiness again!) The are, admittedly, shots where this isn't called for and thus would be detrimental, but often that isn't the case, especially at night.
I hope that this helps.
Any chance you could show us an example of your work, so we could see what a properly lit night scene might look like?
Similar threads
