3 ms·

> Are you implying that traditional filmmakers don't? How is that constructive? They don’t at anywhere near the same level of choices involved in animation. T

by dagmx 4y ago

> Are you implying that traditional filmmakers don't? How is that constructive? They don’t at anywhere near the same level of choices involved in animation. That’s just the simple reality of making something that is a simulation. You choose the way light bounces even if it breaks physics. You can’t do that in real world content. You choose silhouettes and shapes that can’t exist in reality. I’m not saying they don’t make changes. But your statement implied that Animation wasn’t filmmaking. It is. One isn’t better or worse than the other. And CGI is already indistinguishable, when we give it both the budget and art direction that is required. It’s been indistinguishable for most non-biological things for a decade now. We can already make completely realistic creatures and in some regards, also humans. Humans are hardest to still do but creatures have had that milestone crossed ages ago. The hurdle is having the time and desire to do so. I think you are going out of your way to segment things, and place them on a ladder. These are all tools to make content. Saying that CG is best when augmenting practicals is just reductive. Especially when you keep bringing up Jurassic Park where the CG elements were largely the stars, and practicals filled in the rest. Practical effects, CG in VFX, full on animated features…they’re all tools for a creative. They can all suck or be amazing. This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. The people who actually do the work aren’t concerned with this kind of putting one technique on a pedestal over another. They’re all just tools.

imiric 4y ago
I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. It's really not. I can have preferences as to which movies I enjoy more, can't I? _For me_, practical effects are just more enjoyable and immersive to watch. When CGI reaches that level of realism—and you're right that in many ways it already has—I would still appreciate the result more if I knew that the effects were done physically, with all the challenges that poses. With the advent of machine learning, CGI is being commoditized to a level where anyone can create high quality visuals. This is great in many ways, but at the same time, it requires a completely different set of skills, with arguably much less effort, and so I'll never appreciate it as much as the product done in traditional ways. You're free to think otherwise, and that's fine as well. :)
- dagmx 4y ago
  You’re free to an opinion but I just think the foundation of said opinion is shaky. Your latest comment also belies that you don’t particularly understand or appreciate how much work goes into making CGI. It’s not any less of an art form than practical effects. The difference is that it gives a much higher degree of flexibility, but the artistry and technical ability required isn’t diminished in any form.

by dagmx 4y ago

imiric 4y ago

I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. It's really not. I can have preferences as to which movies I enjoy more, can't I? _For me_, practical effects are just more enjoyable and immersive to watch. When CGI reaches that level of realism—and you're right that in many ways it already has—I would still appreciate the result more if I knew that the effects were done physically, with all the challenges that poses. With the advent of machine learning, CGI is being commoditized to a level where anyone can create high quality visuals. This is great in many ways, but at the same time, it requires a completely different set of skills, with arguably much less effort, and so I'll never appreciate it as much as the product done in traditional ways. You're free to think otherwise, and that's fine as well. :)

dagmx 4y ago
You’re free to an opinion but I just think the foundation of said opinion is shaky. Your latest comment also belies that you don’t particularly understand or appreciate how much work goes into making CGI. It’s not any less of an art form than practical effects. The difference is that it gives a much higher degree of flexibility, but the artistry and technical ability required isn’t diminished in any form.