Why do people say AOTC had LOTS of bad CGI?!

Because I'm no more than an expert than you are, I'll leave up to the pros to worry about.

The Taun Tauns looked great for being 1980.

 

I never once said I didn't like the CGI pear. I think it looks great for being CGI. I just think it didn't need to be.

 

Because I'm no more than an expert than you are, I'll leave up to the pros to worry about.

WELL SAID!

But don't worry. You don't need to be an expert. (looks around the JC forums) We appear to have quite a lot of special effects experts on this forum who can criticize ILM's choices.


Something I'll never understand about online people...
No one ever says "The director of photography shouldn't have done this... this would have looked much better with a longer lens."
No one ever says "The production designer screwed up... these fabrics are all wrong for a building of this kind, and the furniture doesn't reflect the personality of the character at all."
But mention special effects and everyone's an expert.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

People know what they want. And people know what they wan't to see. It ain't so hard to talk about those things.

 

Only make a part of the fruit CG, the part of the fruit \she sticks her fork in. If they want a REAL non-existing fruit the prop department can make it. Than the fake but real fruit can flown on a wire to Padme.

 

If it was part CG/part "real", people would complain about that too.

And flying the fruit on a wire probably wouldn't flow as nicely as the CG fruit did.

 

I really don't care what they want to call it, a shuura or whatever.

Move the pear on a stationary rod, stop it in front of Natalie where she'll stick her fork in it, pulling it off the rod and into her mouth. Remove the rod in post and your done.

 

The rod keeps the fruit stable for Natalie to eat it--good.

But would the rod be able to add the little shifts and turns that we see with the CG shuura? The CG fruit looks light and airy as it bobs along... you couldn't have that with just a rod on a track...


(Consider this sort of pointless nitpicking my revenge on people who keep posting crap about light reflections on CG folk. )



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

When you're in post you can move the pear around and make it float however you want it to before it gets to Natalie's fork.

 

So, instead of using a completely CG pear from the beginning, you can use a real pear, and use CG to change it in post?

 

Digitally manipulate it to move as you like, yes.

 

Or they could just use a CG pear.

Cometgreen

 

They could, in which case we end up with the interaction looking totally fake.

 

A thread about CG pears! Alright! I've been looking for these for a while!

"If it was part CG/part "real", people would complain about that too."

Exactly. No matter what method of "pear floating" was used, people would complain

 

People complain when things look fake.

 

People complain just for the sake of complaining.

 

If ILM can not even make a pear look completely real, why would they even attempt CG people? That's just insane.

 

Because the pear did look real, just maybe it wasn't composited well with the scene, the animation wasn't right, or people just complain.

Are you saying that the CG people were bad? Dex is obviously CG, but he looked there to me. As did all of the CG stunt doubles.

Cometgreen

 

It dosn't even look like she really bit into the pear. it just looked like she was biting the air, oh wait! She was!

 

Darth_Insidious: "People complain when things look fake."

This is a complete lack of logic and someone who believes there opinion means a definite conclusion on quality.

Lets just take this "logic" further for your sake. There are more people here apparently praising it. Does this not mean the 'pear' looked real enough and the CG was a success. Surely it is arrogant to believe that if a few people, including yourself, complain about it, then it looks fake.

I don't think so, buddy.

 

"If ILM can not even make a pear look completely real, why would they even attempt CG people? That's just insane."






I totally agree. ILM would never be able to pull of something like that.































[image=http://www.thehulk.com/_images/photos/set7_image4.jpg]


OOPS!

 

clonetrooper, in this case, it's not really an opinion. The pear starts to disappear before Natalie takes the bite out of it, and that's a fact. Now, if you think that's the way it really works....

And about that quote, it wasn't meant to imply that peoples opinions are correct. Someone said that people will complain no matter what, and I said that people will complain when they think something looks fake.

 

DI: They've been nice to eachother, except for that potshot at Gollum taken by someone at ILM.

What potshot? I did not ehar anything about this. What did he say. If this is true that is not good. WETA never said anything bad about AOTC or SW. Why would he do that? Oh well. Lots have taken potshots at SW so I guess someone just finally broke at ILM.

 

Someone said that Gollum didn't interact with his environments, that he never had to get wet, stuff like that. Maybe it wasn't a potshot, maybe it was just ignorance, but you shouldn't open your mouth about something if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Weird. Thought Gullom interacted with the environment pretty well. Oh well. Not going to lose sleep over this one.