i can spot it a mile off, that's why i can't watch a lot of those new hollywood action movies anymore without getting distracted. :\

Nobody looks like that! That's one scary looking smile, looks like The Mask's dentures, check that shit

>
>
>
>
>

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

and that is really saying something since the second and third sucked so very hard.

>
>
>
>
>

Followed closely by Animatrix. Either way, it's like discussing which piece of shit smells better.

CSP

Interesting how they try to make it more realistic by simulating little skin imperfections, wrinkles etc. I guess it will be hard to make a realistic-looking character until somebody figures out an algorithm on how skin ages (so you can make 3D animations of somebody growing up and getting old, then stop at just the right moment).

Anyway expect realistic 3D pr0n by 2010.




[download a life]

You took the words right out of my mouth. Until we see pores, tiny tiny hairs, and realistic muscles and skeletal structures, we won't be convinced. C'est la vie. But if they can make an ordinary acrylic painting look like a photograph, they'll eventually be able to do the same with a 3D model, yes?

Good observation, news. Although they already have (lousy) 3D porn now:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1968


> Interesting how they try to make it more realistic by simulating little skin
> imperfections, wrinkles etc. I guess it will be hard to make a realistic-looking
> character until somebody figures out an algorithm on how skin ages (so you can
> make 3D animations of somebody growing up and getting old, then stop at just the
> right moment).
>
> Anyway expect realistic 3D pr0n by 2010.
>
>
>
>
> [download a life]
>



Fett seal of approval™

or atleast trying to

the ff girl had lots of dots and the old guy had age marks in his eyes
but they still have alot to do, in the first screen, the face looks perfect but the hair is totally "hey i am cg!"

it really doesn't look real to me... even if the broad was bald it wouldn't. one thing that may contribute to this is the lack of subtle nuances that the lenses & innerworkings of real still and video cameras [even digital cameras] introduce. right now too many CGI artists are trying to perfect imperfection, and i think that approach is counterintuitive.

this even carries to some fantasy creatures. some people say gollum looked photorealistic, and that didn't fly with me either. at this point, the best application of CG is in subtle, particularly inorganic effects. a real actor alongside a CG pawn looks awkward unless it's approached correctly. it was like jar jar binks with no annoying accent... oh wait nevermind. he had a fuck of an annoying accent.

the resident evil movie had too much CG but i liked it i guess because it was fun and silly. the gore effects looked fake, and that's something i've got to say is probably going to be the case well into the next couple decades when it comes to CG. cow intestines and other butchershop throwaway should be used for onscreen gore that lasts more than a fraction of a second. it's getting worse and worse in mainstream cinema as CG becomes so much cheaper and so many silly rich pricks who are afraid of cowguts keep getting cast.

i'd have to say 'mars attacks' was one film with great CG that was applied in an appropriate manner: fantasy creatures who are meant to look like fantasy creatures alongside real actors. it looks silly and fake but it's supposed to, and that helps me suspend my disbelief. right now i think the only appropriate use of extensive CG is the same way cel animation was used in 'who framed roger rabbit'.

nt