4 ms·

Yeah that was completely obvious. Check out the scenes that actually were CGI. They are trivial to spot, with a 2021 eye and DVD level quality media or better.

Yeah that was completely obvious. Check out the scenes that actually were CGI. They are trivial to spot, with a 2021 eye and DVD level quality media or better. The whole shot that "went through the computer" has a completely different feel to it than scenes that don't. Compare 3:38 and 3:44 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY. It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera, or going into a mini-dream state. I mean it's extremely well done. It holds up so well even... jesus christ 30 years later?! But it's extremely obvious which scenes got the CGI treatement. Oh, and if this is one of those "once you can see it, you can't unsee it" things: Sorry about that.

sneak 5y ago
We're all on this website reading this comment because doing it all inside the computer in software is simply... easy money.
bhaak 5y ago
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I'm looking at the still frames in 1080p. I see the bullet holes absolutely don't match up. At 3:38 they are not as deep and wide as in 3:44. But also the actors position is different especially the mouth (closed in the first, open in the other). Continuity errors. The morph effect is somewhat cringy but to be fair, they always were. At least in DS9 and Terminator 2 there were in-universe explanations why they existed. There's also something weird going on with the eyes to the T-1000 after the morph effect has finished. Not sure if that was intentional.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The part that jumped out to me in that CGI was the mannequin. The bullet hole morphing is so obvious that in a way it's less objectionable.
- knorker 5y ago
  100% of the frame has a different quality in the clip that went through the computer. Like they smeared something over the lens. Also check out the "goes through the bars" shot. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Look at things like color grading, and things that look like "upscaling" (but aren't).
  - bhaak 5y ago
    Maybe it's that why I don't see it or at least it doesn't spring out to me that much. Because it's like an upscaling effect that also could be an overuse of HD makeup. I've seen that in contemporary movies or series (or badly configured HD TVs) and it doesn't have a dissociative effect on me seeing it in this movie because I just don't remember how movies from that era shouldn't be looking like that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anonymfus 5y ago
> It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera First it's a one single still frame up until the full closure of wounds, may be it's the reason for a dream effect that you feel. It was shot on the same camera as other shots from the John's point of view in this scene, but processed differently, as it went trough film scanner and laser film recorder.
- knorker 5y ago
  Exactly. And you can tell, is my point. Same with other CGI scenes. Amazing for 30 years ago, but very not possible to confuse with practical effects.

sneak 5y ago

We're all on this website reading this comment because doing it all inside the computer in software is simply... easy money.

bhaak 5y ago

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I'm looking at the still frames in 1080p. I see the bullet holes absolutely don't match up. At 3:38 they are not as deep and wide as in 3:44. But also the actors position is different especially the mouth (closed in the first, open in the other). Continuity errors. The morph effect is somewhat cringy but to be fair, they always were. At least in DS9 and Terminator 2 there were in-universe explanations why they existed. There's also something weird going on with the eyes to the T-1000 after the morph effect has finished. Not sure if that was intentional.

rootusrootus 5y ago
The part that jumped out to me in that CGI was the mannequin. The bullet hole morphing is so obvious that in a way it's less objectionable.
knorker 5y ago
100% of the frame has a different quality in the clip that went through the computer. Like they smeared something over the lens. Also check out the "goes through the bars" shot. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Look at things like color grading, and things that look like "upscaling" (but aren't).
- bhaak 5y ago
  Maybe it's that why I don't see it or at least it doesn't spring out to me that much. Because it's like an upscaling effect that also could be an overuse of HD makeup. I've seen that in contemporary movies or series (or badly configured HD TVs) and it doesn't have a dissociative effect on me seeing it in this movie because I just don't remember how movies from that era shouldn't be looking like that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

anonymfus 5y ago

> It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera First it's a one single still frame up until the full closure of wounds, may be it's the reason for a dream effect that you feel. It was shot on the same camera as other shots from the John's point of view in this scene, but processed differently, as it went trough film scanner and laser film recorder.

knorker 5y ago
Exactly. And you can tell, is my point. Same with other CGI scenes. Amazing for 30 years ago, but very not possible to confuse with practical effects.