3 ms·
No. The landscape and nature in that video didn't even look real--never mind people.
by jinushaun 9y ago
No. The landscape and nature in that video didn't even look real--never mind people.
- ygra 9y agoThe pulldown may have helped in that impression, as pretty much every camera motion was jerky ...
- adwi 9y agoFor those interested and unfamiliar, “pulldown” here refers to converting frame rates between different video standards by doubling up or blending frames at regularly spaced intervals, which can introduce a visual artifact called judder which is apparent in those clips. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down
- nitrogen 9y agoFor some reason the video was uploaded at 25fps which almost never plays right on computers, and frame-by-frame playback shows the skipping is baked into the video. I got bored counting frames to figure out what the source framerate might have been, if there was a consistent source rate.
- sgift 9y agoIn my experience the moment people know that something is CGI they get into some kind of "extra scrutinize" mode, which moves the goal. A study showing people videos and asking them to point out CGI vs real would be far more interesting to me.
- jinushaun 9y agoNah. The landscape and plants were too shiny and high contrast. Everything looked plastic. There were some convincing ones in the video though, such as Avengers and the truck demo.
- sp332 9y agoOnce you get realistic "rendering" you also need to stick to familiar cinematic styles. There's no motion blur or depth-of-field like there is when shooting with a film camera, so even if the landscape were simulated perfectly, it would still look weird.