ILM Rotoscopers: Finaly on the right track?

I'm not judging on realism. If I were, I'd have to throw out the whole of the Star Wars saga over its "sound in space" angle.

Ryan already addressed this. If this is the most laughable debate on the internet, then the "sound in space angle" is by far its most laughable retort.

Is it two times better? Three times better? Five? Do you have a testable formula you'd like to spring on us? Exactly how many degrees "better" are we talking here?

A lightsaber that looks like light is 100% better than one that does not. Simple as that.

If you really want a formula, we can even use binary.

Lightsabers that look like light: 1
Lightsabers that don't: 0

So the formula is "Good * (y)", where "y" is the numerical representation of the saber style.

So lightsabers that look like light = Good * (1) = Good

Lightsabers that don't = Good * (0) = not good

M. Scott

 

I agree. And the AE method used around here is MUCH brighter than ILM. Simple as that.

If you were to hold a fluorescent light tube, and it looked pale on screen, then if you held one with an 'aura' around it.. which one would look like it was a light source?

I'd take the brighter one any day. These blades are made of ENERGY guys. Lasers, light, power. They're gonna be bright! They SHOULD be bright!

 

And you lemmings who sit there and mock those who are criticizing the ILM effects can kiss my ass. ILM employees weren't created in tests tubes marked "effects artist".

Bite me, man. Call me a hyprocrite if you want, but take a look at what you're so adamantly defending. A special effect. It's just, JUST a special effect in a movie you like. Yet here we are, for the hundredth time in this forum, at page three of a heated argument in which nothing has been won, nobody has been proven wrong by substantial evidence, and everybody thinks they're right.

Has anyone else pulled their head two feet out of their ass and realized how trivial this entire topic is? You will never, ever have the capability to affect what goes on that screen in May. You can not change it, all you can do is make your own and tote your superiority. You can argue and argue and argue that YES, you're right, it IS wrong. But that doesn't get you anywhere, doesn't end the argument, and doesn't change the fact that you know what?

They're still ****in' there.

 

this is the most laughable debate on the internet, then the "sound in space angle" is by far its most laughable retort.

No, it just means you have absolutely no other argument to fall back on. Sorry, but you won't win this one. (Neither will I, but hey, this was a total hoot.)

A lightsaber that looks like light is 100% better than one that does not. Simple as that.

This is just way too funny.

 

Scott - I like the formula.

(runs away before getting hit by the flying debris)

 

disagree. The test that demonstrated how superior saber was to ILM's did absolutely nothing to convince me.

As Ryan originally admitted when doing it, he had to exaggerate the effect because he head to "overwrite" the existing bad effect.

If he had had access to the raw unrotoed clip, it would have looked better.

I vastly prefer the simple, stylized approach of ILM in AOTC

Oh please. That travesty Dooku is holding 75% into the clip (the famous AOTC "MSPaint" saber). I mean hello. You CAN'T be satisfied by that. It's atrocious.

to that convoluted-obfuscaty-glowy malarky from the comparison clip.

As said, it gets overdone, partially to show the difference, partially due to having to cancel out the bad stuff under it.

You can certainly offer a thoughtful treatise on how much more "real" it is, and I can say ... fine, it's more real, but I still think it's crud.

C'mon, dub, pal, my friend... honestly... you honestly think that mess 75% into the clip is watchable? I mean honestly?

If so, I'm totally baffled!

Really.

/Z

 

Actually, any positive number is infinitely many times greater than 0. So (assuming I agree with Dorkman), our sabers are infinitely greater (seeing as they act like light should act, qualifying them for the binary score of 1) than ILM's.

 

Haha, nice.


But I agree with Fig, also. We're not getting anywhere here. You do it your way, we'll do it ours, and we'll all be happy with our own footage when the day is done.

And the movie? It's just a movie. Let them make their mistakes, I'm still gonna sit back in my comfy theater seat at midnight May 19th and enjoy the story.





I'll rip on the effects when I get the DVD.

-Vaportrail

 

I know that I don't post here very often, except when I have a question. Consequently, I may not have much place in this discussion but nevertheless: I have an opinion! [trumpet fanfare]

The way I see it, the reason that this argument cannot be settled is because it is really about a matter of taste. For those who like the ILM sabers, it is just a matter of preference.

Its like the recent choreography competition wherein some people prefered realistic moves whereas others liked the more over the top, totally impossible style. To use another example, Ray Harryhousen has said that he prefers the old stop motion creature effects to modern cg creatures. They look fake as hell, but there is somthing appealing about them nonetheless.

As for those who like the ILM sabers, they may prefer the darker, richer colors despite the fact that they don't look real. There's nothing wrong with that, its just a personal opinion. You may as well convince them that the earth is flat as try to convince them to change that opinion.

All that being said, I myself much prefer the photorealistic sabers. Would that my own could look that good.

 

Concur, Vapor. Well put. (Also echoing Fig and a few others as well.)

 

Does anyone else think that might get a bit distracting in motion? Especially in dark scenes...instead of the actors and the action occupying the focus of the audience's vision, there would just be big, bright blobs moving really fast across the screen.

EpII comes to mind there

And you lemmings who sit there and mock those who are criticizing the ILM effects can kiss my ass.

Lemmings is such a kick ass game.

I admit- your sabers look more real, but the ILM ones look more like "inside the scene".

So did the EpI sabers. They look like how we like them and they're sure as hell not distracting.

By the way, Did anyone else notice the bad cutting right after Doku jumps? The next shots obviously reveals that he did NOT jump before

Ryan cut out the shot of him landing again.

Um, I'll come back when I have something to add to the discussion *shifty eyes*

 

Bite me, man. Call me a hyprocrite if you want, but take a look at what you're so adamantly defending. A special effect. It's just, JUST a special effect in a movie you like. Yet here we are, for the hundredth time in this forum, at page three of a heated argument in which nothing has been won, nobody has been proven wrong by substantial evidence, and everybody thinks they're right.

Has anyone else pulled their head two feet out of their ass and realized how trivial this entire topic is? You will never, ever have the capability to affect what goes on that screen in May. You can not change it, all you can do is make your own and tote your superiority. You can argue and argue and argue that YES, you're right, it IS wrong. But that doesn't get you anywhere, doesn't end the argument, and doesn't change the fact that you know what?

They're still ****in' there.


Thanks for opening my eyes, Fig. I see now that we should accept all that it would appear we cannot change, and any time an aspect of a movie sucks, we should not care, not voice our opinions, and not criticize it. Because to do so would be completely pointless. In fact, I don't know why there are movie reviewers. All they do is talk about what they thought was good or bad in movies when they can't change the movie. Why should we all care about lightsabers anyway? It's only one of the most famous, iconic, and beloved visual effects in cinematic history. Who would care about that, especially on a Star Wars forum?

 

I agree with what Fig just said.

I'm disappointed with you guys constantly bashing the ILM sabers and dissing people defending them. You might have famous names on this forum, but that does not mean you are always right.

If you wanna waste your time re-rotoscoping ROTS shots when they come out on DVD...go ahead, I'm sure people will watch it and kiss your @$$!

Grow up!

 

I think it might be that time of the month for Ryan. Yet, I agree with him

 

C'mon, dub, pal, my friend... honestly... you honestly think that mess 75% into the clip is watchable? I mean honestly?

It never bothered me before, and it will continue not to bother me well into my old age... honestly.

If so, I'm totally baffled!

That's as may be, but not as baffled as I am that this argument has carried on for as long as it has. Say it with me, now: Saddest. Thread. Ever!

I'm sure this will seem less stupid over a round of drinks. I sure wish I could buy you a shot of glogg on the 15th, but I'm not positive it'll be served where we'll be. <shrug> You're just gonna have to name a backup poison!

 

Dorkman: I absolutely loved your binary formula. A good chunk of many a problem solution is picking the right basis

Zap The lack of lightwrap is the most appalling aspect to me too. Especially since all they have to do is change where the subtraction mask is for it to make sense.

-Spiff

 

Wouldn't it be sad if they were trying Ryan's method and failing horribly?

"Wait, the subtraction mask, where does it go again? I don't understand, I turn the shadows midtones and highhlights all the way up AND I have preserve luminosity off, but fir some reason it just doesn't work! Oh well, we've got to get these shots done before may, no time to fix it now!" I can here them saying.

 

^ ^

Lol

 

I disagree. I think anyone who has a copy of AE and takes the time do study the tutorial and trace their blade properly, and apply the glows so they look like they'd fit in the environment can do the effect well, but some people just do the standard thing every time.

That's entirely besides the point. Did you even read my post?
Just because someone has to follow the Ryan_W tutorial dosn't mean they do...or at least, properly.

 

Thanks for opening my eyes, Fig. I see now that we should accept all that it would appear we cannot change, and any time an aspect of a movie sucks, we should not care, not voice our opinions, and not criticize it. Because to do so would be completely pointless. In fact, I don't know why there are movie reviewers. All they do is talk about what they thought was good or bad in movies when they can't change the movie. Why should we all care about lightsabers anyway? It's only one of the most famous, iconic, and beloved visual effects in cinematic history. Who would care about that, especially on a Star Wars forum?

It's interesting it's under the guise of sarcasm you've hit the nail on the head.

 

After seeing the teaser trialer for Episode III, I accepted the fact that they are not good at creating lightsaber glows, and they get paid to try. What bothers me more now, is the fact that they are more Lightspears, then lightsabers. I really dont like the pointed edges as said in the opening pages.

 

[image=http://www.darthscreencapture.com/RPark/Maul/Data/DVD/03/images/darth_maul_254.jpg]

Episode I was on the right track, they coulda done okay with these. They're still quite glowy.
Then in Episode II... meh.

Tho there are a few inconsistencies on a shot-to-shot basis. (Like when Padme yells "Get to your ships!", watch Qui-Gon's saber in the surrounding shots)


ILM.. you were doing so WELL.

-Vaportrail

EDIT: Heh, thanks DLB.

 

[image=http://www.darthscreencapture.com/RPark/Maul/Data/DVD/03/images/darth_maul_254.jpg]

Is that what you intended Vapor?

 

Fig, you can't be serious. You think reviewers are pointless? You think we shouldn't voice disappointment? Who are you, Carl Marx?

 

Check out these visual effects...

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/243-sexymeow.jpg]