Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AndrewB

Concrete proof that Nemesis is shoddy tripe.

Recommended Posts



If you cannot tell what's visually wrong with this image, then you won't be able to understand this fundamental example of how computers have desecrated the modern action movie industry.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, for one thing, how did it get so high off the ground? It looks like it was belched out instead of rolling out down that ramp and onto the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

If you cannot tell what's visually wrong with this image, then you won't be able to understand this fundamental example of how computers have desecrated the modern action movie industry.

The guy at the back of the car is cgi. Jeez! That's easy.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess there's no harm in "revealing" what's wrong. The go-kart is obviously moving, and moving fast. It's coming out of a tunnel type place, obviously at a great velocity for it to be that high off the ground at that distance from the tunnel.

What's wrong is that it's not blurred. All moving objects filmed live-action, without exception, blur. The greater velocity, the more dramatic the blur. You could say "Well maybe the camera is locked on the kart, making it not blur." If that were the case, the ground would blur quite dramatically. But there is no blur anywhere. If you take a picture of someone waving their hands, there will be a noticible blur.

Another faulty argument would be the film is such high quality that it exposes itself so fast that there is never any blur. Live-action movies do not work this way. Film blur smoothes out the images between frames in a 24FPS film. The less blur, the more jerky and jarring the image. We all know how jerky fast-paced games can be at 24FPS. That's the way it is with moving images that have no blur.

Bottom line, the action movie industry is infested with idiots with supercomputers who don't know the first thing about making a proper movie.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care about one movie, I care about an entire generation of movies suffering from idiocy. And I have as much right to care and complain about this as the next person does to complain endlessly about Anna Nicole Smith. Got that?

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering that at first. Then I figured that since it was so high off the ground, the shadow must be beyond the right edge of the picture.

Share this post


Link to post

My first instinct was that there was no blur. Then I thought it might be a super-high-speed camera shot (i.e. 1 frame per 10 nanoseconds) that would explain the lack of blur on the vehicle. However, you can plainly see blur on the weeds in both the foreground and background.

The problem with using this as an example of how bad cgi might be is because this is simply lazy work. An artist could easily add blur to the vehicle and then all would be well. Heck, I could do it with PSP in a few minutes...

Share this post


Link to post

So Andrewb do you enjoy trolling or something? Because I have yet to see any post from you that is not a troll of some sort.

Just a question, you know, because it is a rather pointless and sad thing to do ALL THE TIME.

But then you are a rather pointless and sad person, so I guess it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Cyb: experiance has taught me that people from Saskatchewan have a tendency to complain.

Anyways, it's unlikly Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn would be willing to do a stunt like that, so they used stunt doubles and CGI.

Share this post


Link to post
FirebrandX said:

My first instinct was that there was no blur. Then I thought it might be a super-high-speed camera shot (i.e. 1 frame per 10 nanoseconds) that would explain the lack of blur on the vehicle. However, you can plainly see blur on the weeds in both the foreground and background.

Nope, that's not motion blur. That's focus blur. If it were motion blur, the ground would be dramatically blurred from left to right, since the camera motion would be from left to right. The blur would have to be spread out quite a bit, probably over 25% of the picture at such a speed. But clearly, the camera is not moving in this particular scene. They obviously filmed the actual scenery and rendered the vehicle, so it's the vehicle that should be blurred, but isn't. I've seen them pull this sort of stunt in Star Trek Voyager. It's really quite amateurish and totally jars any sense of realism.

The problem with using this as an example of how bad cgi might be is because this is simply lazy work. An artist could easily add blur to the vehicle and then all would be well. Heck, I could do it with PSP in a few minutes...

No, it's not that simple. The farther away a moving object is, the less blur there will be in a scene where a camera is steady. Parts of an image will always blur less than others. You cannot just smear parts of a picture and expect everything to look OK. The only way to produce even remotely realistic blur with 3D graphics is to render hundreds of frames per second, and then merge several images into each frame in 24FPS film. There's no working around this.

There are many rules and sciences that go into realistic and immersive filmmaking. Visual realism in films is surprisingly a dying art, and this is but one example of many.

Share this post


Link to post

And since I am such a kind and considerate person, I will kindly respond to your relatively unkind post.

Cyb said:

So Andrewb do you enjoy trolling or something? Because I have yet to see any post from you that is not a troll of some sort.

Obviously you're not looking hard enough.

Just a question, you know, because it is a rather pointless and sad thing to do ALL THE TIME.

That's true, but of course, I don't do it all the time. It's really no different than rants about one's ____ty life (Tobester for example), or (like I said earlier) endless complaints about Anna Nicole Smith (which I do not disagree with).

But then you are a rather pointless and sad person, so I guess it makes sense.

Hmm. This comment seems to hold no bearing whatsoever on reality. I respectfully disagree with your analysis of me.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

No, it's not that simple. The farther away a moving object is, the less blur there will be in a scene where a camera is steady. Parts of an image will always blur less than others. You cannot just smear parts of a picture and expect everything to look OK. The only way to produce even remotely realistic blur with 3D graphics is to render hundreds of frames per second, and then merge several images into each frame in 24FPS film. There's no working around this.


3D Studio Max has software specifically designed to add correct motion blur to an oject without creating hundreds of frames as you suggest, so there is a way to work around it. Besides, my point was that even a quick blur effect added with PSP would make the image look more realistic than it does now. Of course it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but that's not the point. It seems as though you would have us believe that this one picture alone is the be-all, end-all result of what you get when you use cgi, while I'm saying it wouldn't be fair to assume that from this one picture. Cgi can greatly enhance a movie when used properly and under the right direction, so I hope "purists" will some day realize that instead of taking up a crusade against it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but that's different than applying a blur effect on a 2D image as you suggested doing with Paint Shop Pro. To fix a problem such as this, it has to be done at the 3D rendering level.

The reviews are coming in, and so far the critics seem to say that the "special" effects are cheesy, corny, and unrealistic in all senses.

Share this post


Link to post

int rant;
{
WHO REALLY GIVES A FUCK?

Honestely. If you hate how the damned movie industry are idiots then go and change it.

It's not like we really care, and out of how many people would actually sit there and say "my god it's not blurring when it should"...I'm sure there are many, but most of the populace wouldn't care. That's who they make the movies for.
}

Share this post


Link to post

AndrewB, you're a moron. This picture is a PUBLICITY STILL. The key word here is STILL. What sort of shitty publicity still would have the vehicle and the characters so blurred you couldn't see what the hell was going on? The vehicle is obviously CG so what would stop the FX team from rendering a single frame without the motion blur so that the press could use it? Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×