So no CGI... but like - Bluescreen/greenscreen.....looks like a huge overlay around 0.50

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:


>> ^kceaton1:
I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

Less is more!
I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.

Terminator 2 was awesome. Another good use was Jurassic Park. Man, that was one hell of an experience in theaters (both were).


Another more recent movie that has judicious but totally appropriate use of CGI effects is the Swedish vampire movie Let The Right One In.
When you're watching it, you don't really expect to see well done CGI effects (at least I didn't) so, when the effects are presented it has more of an impact, imo. Maybe it's because they don't promote it as an CGI effects laden movie, which it really isn't anyway. But, when you went to see Terminator 2, most likely you were going to see what cool CGI effects they did. I know I was. Same thing with Jurassic Park, we all went to see the dinosaurs. I was enthralled by both but, nowadays I prefer more subtle CGI.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^kceaton1:
I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

Less is more!
I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.


Terminator 2 was awesome. Another good use was Jurassic Park. Man, that was one hell of an experience in theaters (both were).

>> ^kceaton1:

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.


Less is more!

I think Cameron's Terminator 2 is a good example of shrewd use of CGI where absolutely needed and no more. Watching the 'making of' stuff for T2, I was amazed at how things that I thought were obvious CGI were actually not.

>> ^kceaton1:

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.


It occurred to me when I read this that there were 7 years between Resurrection and AVP, and there has now been about 7 years since AVP came out... god damn that makes me feel old. When AVP came out, I felt like Resurrection was a whole lifetime ago. But now I feel like AVP is still a relatively new movie..

I consider the best creature ever to be the Alien. No CGI. The damn thing elicits fear.

> Looks like they rendered Sinestro entirely with CGI, and I have to wonder
> why. It's just the purple skin they have to fake, right? Anyone?

I've read the original plans were to use no CGI, with illegal aliens instead of the purple CGI aliens.

This video always leaves me transfixed and mesmerized.

A lot of VERY talented people worked on this and cost roughly $90K to pull off. It took thirty some odd takes (with resets, that could take almost no time to a few hours depending on where the machine got to) with two edits and some manipulation (just the speed-to match with the song) This used NO CGI and they actually got the machine to work IN FULL with no resets three times.

People from MIT and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other, just as talented people, helped to build and get this machine to run. And, specifically, to get it to run in time with the music (or roughly so--the editing slows it down and speeds it up where necessary, but they aren't LARGE edits--you won't notice them unless you look HARD). This will always be a great and unique video.

BTW, considering the people that worked on this you should keep your eyes open and on the look out for easter eggs that are included in the course and related with, usually, their day jobs. This would also be a great teaching tool to introduce kids, in a physics/science class, specifically talking about the easiest of beginning physics: Newtonian Mechanics. Maybe, get the class or better, groups in the class, to come up with their own using various objects available. Make sure you show your math!

Thriller is a great music video and is epic to watch and is great in it's own way. This video does the same. It's memorable and very re-watchable (although the music is average ).

>> ^Advocata_Nostra:
i suspect the side by side stunts were rigged.


Still cool tho. I still respect "tricks" like that as long as it's not editing and two people actually driving two cars chained together. Still takes monster amounts of skill.

>> ^EDD:

>> ^robbersdog49:
It's good, but too much CGI. It doesn't have the charm of the first one.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this has very little CGI, at least compared to the majority of your modern montage ads.


Actually, now I watch it again, I'm pretty sure there's almost no CGI at all. I stand corrected. I think they've used it to hide some wires, but that's about it.

As far as I can tell, no CGI until the swan dive, and I doubt there's any way they could've got him into those pants and boots otherwise.

Amazing and no CGI, all hand work.

Using both praxinoscopes and the technique of matching up the frame rate of the spinning record to that of the camera, no computer super-imposing was used; what you see is what rolled off the camera. The transitions between each section of animation was created by simply cutting or wiping between the bits of footage.

All the animations were created, drawn and coloured by the director David Wilson.

I do believe this is a dupe though, but couldn't find it.

Don't forget the coolest part: there's almost no CGI in The Fountain. It's old-school optical effects.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*promote

Suh-weet, thanks!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote