Tendo City

I'm glad you mentioned cloth because that is the most difficult CGI technique to accomplish, and so far the only studio to successfully pull it off was ILM with AotC. As a matter of fact, they did it so well that they added in fake cloth in many scenes that most people don't know about. The look and animation is nearly flawless.

See the clothing on Obi-Wan? 100% CGI. Same goes for Yoda, obviously.





Stills don't do it justice, so you really have to watch the movie again. Watch the Geonosis battle near the end of the movie when Yoda is on that Gunship, and notice how realistic it looks like when the wind flaps his robe. It most certainly does not look as fake as you say it does. I bet you didn't even know that that Obi-Wan robe was fake before I told you.

Granted, it's not perfect, but no one else can even come close to it. Nobody.

The CG in Clones doesn't look exactly real. While when I watched it I didn't notice the CG replacements of normally human characters as CG (Obi-Wan, C3PO...) -- probably because I didn't expect them to be CG so I would overlook any differences, I did definitely see that the CG characters (Yoda, clone troopers, Dexter Jettser, the inhabitants of Geonosis, as well as the Gungans and Watto in both movies) don't look real. Do they look pretty close? Yes, they do... but they don't look exactly like real people. However, they look better than the CG characters in any other movie I've ever seen...

I wonder when a CG character will be so indistinguishable from real ones that you could truly replace a actor and no one could ever tell the difference... we're not near there yet, but its still very impressive... like that cloth in AOTC.

Now how about getting some of this stuff in videogames? Better trees would be nice too... game trees still look TERRIRBLE!

In some shots the clones don't look totally realistic, but can you honestly tell me that you'd think that this was a computer-generated character if you didn't already know that he's fake? You know how sensitive I am to these minute graphical details, and I really don't see how that model can get any better-looking.



You should check out ICO for some good video game trees.

Sorry, but somehow it does look ... unreal ... I don't know what they can do to improve it. Maybe it is because I know its CG, but that's not all of it... and its not just poly count that makes a CG character look real... of course having the full armor sure helps, but still... it does look great for CG, but not quite real. Too sharp or something... I don't know. Yoda too.. he doesn't look real. He looks a lot better than he did as a puppet, though... and at the rate they're going ILM will perfect it in not too long I bet.

Wait, I thought you already had 0 respect for me, what are we in negative numbers now? I'm also quite impressed that this is the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard me say. Then again, you are constantly getting that upgraded with every single argument you get into. Then again, if some comments saying I don't find the graphics photorealistic in some nerd movie is the most ridiculous thing you ever heard, maybe, just maybe, you should get out more.

Well you are being ridiculous! I mean, The Spirits Within better than TCW? No way! Just look at them... TSW is great looking, but nowhere near TCW! As OB1 said, those characters would never look anywhere NEAR as good when put with real actors... as opposed to Clone Wars which, while not perfect, does a amazingingly good job of it and even at times is completely convincing that CG characters are real... just look at them!

And as for the nerd comment you know as well as I do that its hypocritical... :)

Amen to that.

The clone in that screen looks sharp because everyone in the movie looks sharp. They filmed the entire thing with digital cameras, remember? They even got the suit textures to look a bit like plastic, which is something that ILM has been doing with these movies to make certain things look a bit like the old trilogy stuff. Actually it's even more striking that the clone looks that realistic while being so clear and so sharp; it means that they're not using any shadows or blemishes in clever ways to hide the model's faults.

Oh and you can find that Animatrix trailer at thematrix.com DJ, in case you haven't figured that out already.

and I really don't see how that model can get any better-looking.

Seems that some of us agree...ABF, DJ. There's no arguing that TCW has the best CGI yet, but it's NOT PHOTO-REALISTIC. One can tell that its CGI.

If anyone really wants to see the Animatrix "Final Flight of Osiris" or whatever, go see Dreamcatcher.

I was checking to see how the movie was starting out, and it was all green, and I think, "Matrix? Nuh-uh, couldn't be. But maybe it's just a long ad." Then I watch, and I think, "oo, this is nice. But why do they call it the Animatrix if it has real people?" And then I figured it out. They were CGI. And I was amazed.

Granted, I was watching this on some two-story screen as opposed to some small computer monitor, but WOW. That was something.

The faces were really well done, but the overall skin seemed too perfect. If you watch the opening, once the clothes start flying off you can start to tell it's CGI. But oh, it's good.

Fascinating....but no way in hell am I going to pay $8.50 to see that.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
[B]and I really don't see how that model can get any better-looking.

Seems that some of us agree...ABF, DJ. There's no arguing that TCW has the best CGI yet, but it's NOT PHOTO-REALISTIC. One can tell that its CGI. [/B]

Yeah right, you guys can't even explain in which ways it can look better.

Nor can you. How can it get any better? When I can look at a real-life photograph, and then at a screen shot of CGI, and not tell the difference.

Oh well said. Well said!

I can always think of ways to improve almost all CGI images, but with certain things in AotC I cannot.

But hey, you can think that FF has the best visual effects ever. I don't care. I also don't care that AotC lost to TTT for best visual effects (which I've always expected would happen), or that Gladiator won the same award in 2000. I'm sure that most people think that Gollum is the greatest-looking CGI character ever made despite its relative simplicity. And I know that most people think that Keanu Reeves performed awesome martial arts in The Matrix, which is just so laughable. But that's just the way things are, I suppose.

To be honest I can't even explain how they could go about improoving Toy Story's look to make everything look more real, but obviously that looked plainly fake, and they have improoved it. I'm just not good with words that way. I can't explain how any CG model can look better, but sheesh, can't you accept that some people COULD tell that was CG, and it was just you who couldn't? It's really not insulting, CG determination isn't exactly some sign of high intelligence. Here's something interesting, many people swore they thought that truck near the end of Toy Story was actually filmed. Of course, this was until they actually took a better look, but the point is that worse CG has been confused for reality before.

*sigh*

I give up. Go ahead and think what you wish.

VICTORY!

Only because it's tiresome to argue with people so terribly wrong. You guys are like the Academy.

VICTORY~!

Not victory... you just tired him out...

AOTC's CG could improve... not that much in many ways because it does really look amazingly good, but it could improve... until it looks 100% the same as lifelike it can... but often until the improvements come we can't think of what those ways are... like now. Or after Toy Story came out...

I can think of many ways to improve several CG shots in AotC, but the clones are flawless.

The clones are very good, and as far as technology can take them to date, but they're far from flawless.

They're flawless.

They're really, really good, but not flawless. I'm sure there are ways they could be improved to look even more like they are really there...

No, you could not. Seriously.

Well, I could tell that they weren't real... and until noone can tell you can improve them... though I can't think of anything offhand...

So you can't think of any ways to improve the model, yet you still say it looks fake.

I'm willing to bet that if you guys hadn't known that the Clones were fake you wouldn't have thought otherwise. But now that you know they're fake you make up these imaginary flaws like "that shoulder pad is too perfect".

Oh for the love of... Well, now it's a matter of accusing us all of being liars. I'd go as far as to say that's rude. I realized it was all CG while watching the movie. Yeesh, why can't you believe people CAN see it for what it is? After all, that IS what it is!

Oh I don't think you're a liar, I just think that you're using your mind instead of your eyes. You even tried to come up with a lame fault, which is crazy because the models were scanned from sculptures.

I don't understand why you can't concieve of the idea that people can tell the difference... I'd think you, the audio/video-freak person, who I'd think would understand that...

Well that's just it. I'm super anal about this sort of thing and I notice all of these little details. And the Clones are flawless. Well the models, anyhow.

I would agree that a lot of the time the CG work in the movie is as close to flawless as you can get with today's technology. That is true... and a lot of the time they do look completely convincing and real. However, sometimes you can kind of tell that they aren't real... but not that often, unlike most movies.

But they aren't perfect in every way... sometimes you can tell that they aren't real, but still do look better than what it would have looked like with models or puppets so its a decent price to pay.

But I can actually tell how a piece of CG work can be improved, whether that's better texturing, better lighting, better animation, or whatever.

Fact is, we don't really need to explain WHY they don't look real. That's the job for psychologists analyzing exactly how we humans determine what's real and not real (after all, we don't just "know", it takes image recognition software which humans have the most complex of). We just can tell, at least I could, from just watching it the first time. I saw this guy and he looked awesome, but just... well, I don't know how to say it, but TOO good. My whole point was valid. In the real world such perfect shapes just aren't done. My computer isn't a PERFECT rectangle, I can see slight bends due to wear and tear, or just a flaw in production. It's hard to explain, but that clone trooper just looked, off, and so almost instantly I realized he's likely CG. When I saw the whole army of them, I was certain of it. I was also very impressed with how well done the CG was, but again, it certainly was apparent that it was CG. You may have an amazing ability to nitpick frame rates and color washout, and resolution and many other display unit related bits of data, but analyzing what's going on IN the image is a whole different beast. It's the difference between being able to see color accuracy and lighting in a painting and being able to see what's being painted.

OB1, have you seen The Hunted? If you haven't, maybe you should. Or shouldn't, actually, because you are as anal as you are. There's a scene where Mr. Jones is going down a waterfall, and the "special effects" are about as special as those on "America's Funniest Home Videos." It's truly laughable.

Quote:Originally posted by WhiteFleck
OB1, have you seen The Hunted? If you haven't, maybe you should. Or shouldn't, actually, because you are as anal as you are. There's a scene where Mr. Jones is going down a waterfall, and the "special effects" are about as special as those on "America's Funniest Home Videos." It's truly laughable.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
Fact is, we don't really need to explain WHY they don't look real. That's the job for psychologists analyzing exactly how we humans determine what's real and not real (after all, we don't just "know", it takes image recognition software which humans have the most complex of). We just can tell, at least I could, from just watching it the first time. I saw this guy and he looked awesome, but just... well, I don't know how to say it, but TOO good. My whole point was valid. In the real world such perfect shapes just aren't done. My computer isn't a PERFECT rectangle, I can see slight bends due to wear and tear, or just a flaw in production. It's hard to explain, but that clone trooper just looked, off, and so almost instantly I realized he's likely CG. When I saw the whole army of them, I was certain of it. I was also very impressed with how well done the CG was, but again, it certainly was apparent that it was CG. You may have an amazing ability to nitpick frame rates and color washout, and resolution and many other display unit related bits of data, but analyzing what's going on IN the image is a whole different beast. It's the difference between being able to see color accuracy and lighting in a painting and being able to see what's being painted.

But you see that's my point. The clone models were not created by a 3d modeling program! They scanned the maquette clones using one of those laser scanner thingies. So your whole "they're too perfect to look real" argument is wrong.

And I'm observent and anal of everything visual, DJ. Not just colors and framerates.

That's 'overly observant', OB1... not just 'observant'... :)

And if you care so much I don't see why you can't understand that it could be possible to see them as not real!

In some shots they looked fake because of the lighting or various other reasons, but in many cases they looked 100% real.

Goddamit OB1, I love Star Wars too, but the clones in AOTC were now flawless. This isn't a battle over liking / hating Star Wars; all you're fighting for in this thread is how hard a bunch of computer geeks worked to make clone troopers look real. I don't give a shit any more. They ARE FLAWED...we mostly all agree.

This has nothing to do with liking or not likings. I've already stated that several of the f/x shots aren't perfect. But you're wrong. The clones are flawless.

Oh come on... they aren't... since many times they don't look as real as the real people they aren't. But you'll never agree now.

Touché, Black Falcon.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh come on... they aren't... since many times they don't look as real as the real people they aren't. But you'll never agree now.

What the--? Could you please rephrase that?

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
Touché, Black Falcon.

Haha, when someone says "touché" it means that they are acknoledging defeat or successful criticism. So you basically just said that he got you.

I use it in the broader sense of saying that I agree. But thats just me. And now you know. And you're dragging this out of topic: The clones are not flawless. And didn't you already abdicate from this thread?

Yeah, Darunia, when you use it in that way it does mean that you are admitting defeat... so i was confused... I mean you agree with me so why say that?

The clones are flawless. End of discussion.

Well with that level of certainty I guess so...

Yes.