4 ms·
I disagree for the need for complete physical accuracy. The illusion of accuracy can be equally as strong in film. Film has always been about creating successfu
by aceazzameen 3y ago
I disagree for the need for complete physical accuracy. The illusion of accuracy can be equally as strong in film. Film has always been about creating successful illusions. But figuring out how to create the illusion for a specific shot takes an experienced artist time. Time they are rarely given these days and aren't being paid enough to do.
I think OP is saying he has that freedom and time to do exactly that on his desktop.
- crazygringo 3y agoBut the article is about so many examples of unsuccessful illusions. So that's what I'm questioning: do we really have the technical ability to create realistic-enough fire in these types of complex scenarios? Even given a reasonable but realistic timeframe? Just because we can easily make realistic-enough fire in some scenarios doesn't mean we can in all. And clothing on fire on a human body in motion in the wind sounds like one of the hardest scenarios of all.
- aceazzameen 3y agoYes, but you won't see it often because VFX artists aren't paid what they're worth, are given unrealistic timeframes, and are even given sloppy direction that is counter to what a realistic effect should look like.