all your favourite movies you think are "all practical" are almost certainly huge VFX movies.

VFX Artist Proves Pluto IS a Planet

No, he doesn't.

You don't even get a spoiler warning for that.

VFX B4 & After: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljBSmQdL_Ow

The production value is way too high. Stock video explosions? Why pay money for that VFX?

i knew those were flowline renders.

here's the VFX breakdown: https://vimeo.com/296125433

Ha.

Explain please. I read the entire article/page. Their definition was exactly what I quoted, so it does actually support exactly what I said.

“ Computer-generated imagery, or CGI for short, is a term that describes digitally-created images in film and television. CGI is a subcategory of visual effects (VFX), imagery filmmakers create or manipulate that does not exist in the physical environment being captured on film or video. CGI is instrumental in the making of movies and television shows and serves as the primary method for creating 3D-computer graphics for video games.”

Imagery Filmmakers create OR MANIPULATE that does not exist in the physical environment…exactly what this video is.

Did you actually read it? Because it does say what I’m saying.

You mean because their three examples of CGI films were all pure cgi animation the specific definition they gave doesn’t apply? Lol. It wasn’t an all inclusive list, it was 3 cgi blockbusters.

I hope that’s not your argument. If it is, you should feel ashamed.

HA!

this img wasn't generated by a computer. altered [slightly], yes, but filters ≠ CGI. blurring an img, using a blue filter, or cropping an image does not make it "CGI". you can argue the semantics of if it being "generated" by a computer, but arguing it is means all digital photos, images, hell even text of any kind are "CGI". "CGI" is already a stupid, near meaningless term and pushing the definition to "any image that appears or had appeared on a computer in any way" makes it even less useful. [generally VFX/visual effects is the umbrella term people are looking for. CG is the term if they're referring to rendered assets. this is neither. this poor use of language is a huge pet peeve for me.]

imma ignore the "art" argument because that is regularly a black hole of silly and i don't feel the need to engage that but those painted potatoes more effort than this.

this is meat and potatoes stuff for TV VFX work. i've seen and done way dumber shit.

Serviceable if it's a AA/AAA in-game footage. As a fan-made VFX project, it's awesome. Gamera's design is specialy awesome.

it's funny he's basically an amateur critic of amateur VFX now.

It's not the VFX that bore you, it's the design of the shots/action. You would feel the same way if the same busy, over-designed novelty shot was done with traditional special fx techniques. Just making the distinction because people often blame vfx for stuff that is really a design/filmmaker issue.

All the previs in the world can't make bad scripts into good movies.

I enjoyed the early Avengers movies (the Ironmans and the 1st Thor & Capt), then the later ones are all bore-fests.

Why are they dumb? For me MCU movies have the tendency of the second 3 heroes are on screen together the action gets dumb.

Super busy VFX bores me to death, there's rarely any emotional payoff in those scenes. And all these previs does is to make a busy mess of action shots. Meh...

it doesn't implement well in a VFX pipeline (though he argues it *could). lack of camera import/export, lack of AOVs, lack of geo import/export, lack of motion blur make it pretty much untenable. plus too many errors, aliasing, noise that would require a lot of work to clean up.

VFX b4 & after reveal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIlEYGFBECU

they were working on the VFX when i was working on deadpool 2.