4 ms·

From what I've read it seems like your mantra should be like Coca cola zero branding: Real CGI, zero cost. Well, 20% to be precise, but still. Mantra is a sloga

From what I've read it seems like your mantra should be like Coca cola zero branding: Real CGI, zero cost. Well, 20% to be precise, but still. Mantra is a slogan that everybody should understand. You give it to a preschooler and he knows what to do. Correct me if I'm wrong.

erichocean 15y ago
I like it. How does "Instant CGI" sound? That's probably closer to our system (it's instant when you're shooting on set -- obviously it takes time to set up the CGI environment, although changes do happen in realtime -- moving lights, props, etc). Our computer-photography system, called Metropolis, can still run in real-time with arbitrary camera movements (e.g. Steadicam), even when actors are being composited live within the CGI environments, and even when the CGI environment contains animation (wind, water, etc). The camera operator sees the combined scene in the viewfinder, live.
- neilk 15y ago
  Sounds interesting. But I think "live" or "real-time" captures it better. "Metropolis replaces the soundstage with real-time CGI" ? "Shoot with live CGI" ? "With Metropolis, you can shoot a CGI feature in real-time" ? This is probably a little bit false as the final rendering is probably better than what you show the camera operator, but it gets the point across.
  - chipsy 15y ago
    "Live CGI" in particular expresses something very important about the tech - that it can be used in combination with other on-set tools and props, and cuts out much of the "parallel workflow" that is currently required to composite a CGI scene. You don't get the same concept out of "real-time" or "instant" because game engines are "real-time CGI," and "instant" has an existing association with "pre-packaged" - e.g. "instant coffee." "Automatic CGI" might also work. It's not 100% accurate but it would provoke people to say "what's so automatic about it?" And from there you can explain how now the camera operator can move around a CGI set freely, etc.
    - erichocean 15y ago
      I like these options, "Live CGI" most of all. Thanks for everyone's contribution, it's very much appreciated. :)

erichocean 15y ago

I like it. How does "Instant CGI" sound? That's probably closer to our system (it's instant when you're shooting on set -- obviously it takes time to set up the CGI environment, although changes do happen in realtime -- moving lights, props, etc). Our computer-photography system, called Metropolis, can still run in real-time with arbitrary camera movements (e.g. Steadicam), even when actors are being composited live within the CGI environments, and even when the CGI environment contains animation (wind, water, etc). The camera operator sees the combined scene in the viewfinder, live.

neilk 15y ago
Sounds interesting. But I think "live" or "real-time" captures it better. "Metropolis replaces the soundstage with real-time CGI" ? "Shoot with live CGI" ? "With Metropolis, you can shoot a CGI feature in real-time" ? This is probably a little bit false as the final rendering is probably better than what you show the camera operator, but it gets the point across.
- chipsy 15y ago
  "Live CGI" in particular expresses something very important about the tech - that it can be used in combination with other on-set tools and props, and cuts out much of the "parallel workflow" that is currently required to composite a CGI scene. You don't get the same concept out of "real-time" or "instant" because game engines are "real-time CGI," and "instant" has an existing association with "pre-packaged" - e.g. "instant coffee." "Automatic CGI" might also work. It's not 100% accurate but it would provoke people to say "what's so automatic about it?" And from there you can explain how now the camera operator can move around a CGI set freely, etc.
  - erichocean 15y ago
    I like these options, "Live CGI" most of all. Thanks for everyone's contribution, it's very much appreciated. :)