Impressive how they got that looking so natural (not CGI).

I wonder if virtual reality would help with the psychological effects. Not gaming or pr0n, but just sitting or walking through a park, or down a busy city street. Not CGI, but 360 degree, 3D video.

the color grading is not cgi's fault, you're talking about creative decisions that George Miller made. If the goal was to keep the footage looking raw and documentary-style, they could have done the cgi that way.

That would've been suicide. It'd be like starting the movies for the Harry Potter series on book 4. Sure, you'd have a fanbase that knows the source material and would understand what's going on, but it would alienate everyone who hasn't read the books, and now they don't wanna go see it.

At least this way with it being (somewhat relatively close to) orcs vs humans, we establish the general base for what happens, so if it's a success they can continue down the story.

There's foreshadowing in the trailer anyway, the orc that sends the baby down the river, I'm guessing the baby is Thrall.

Which already kinda mucks up the storyline.. because that more involves parts of warcraft II.. Either way, I thought it looked pretty decent. I'm hoping a bit more work goes into making the orcs look a little more.. not CGI in a couple of those scenes, but I'll probably go see it.

Jalopnik and reddit have speculated, and both point to xkcd 413 as a possible inspiration.

http://jalopnik.com/the-new-star-wars-droid-is-not-cgi-so-how-does-it-wor-1698461524

The 100% serious straight faced republican answer is "because he's a better* person than you".

No - the answer is that you guys are comparing grapes and basketballs and then bellyaching about how it "isn't fair" that the grape doesn't bounce as high as a basketball. It accomplishes nothing except to prove how woefully ignorant you are, and how horribly succeptible you are to leftist bull$#!t.

I'll try to put this in a way that even a ProgLibDyte could understand... There's two reasons Romney only paid 13.9% taxes....

1. Most of his income was from capital gains investments - which are taxed at much lower rates than income taxes in nations all over the planet. This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector. So capital gains investments are a behavior that should be rewarded - and even the government knows this. That's why CGI rates are only 15% even for guys like Buffett because government wants them dumping money into business capital to stimulate growth - and they aren't going to penalize that highly beneficial behavior with punitive tax rates just because you are stupid and feel butthurt about it.

2. Mitt Romney donated 15% of his income to charity - which is tax deductible. It is another thing that is never going to change, because giving money to a private charity is a bilion times more efficient than giving it to government, and that kind of behavior should be rewarded.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

That's reality guys. I know it is not convenient to the liberal worldview, but even your left-wing radical pals like Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and all the rest do the exact same things as Romney once they have earned enough money. And yet you don't seem to care about that. Curious. Very curious indeed, this thing you call 'selective outrage'... Facts are facts, and for true INCOME (not CGI) Mitt, Buffett, Gates, and everyone else pay higher taxes than you (or the same if you happen to hit the highest tax tier). The only way you leftists can ever conjure up your fakey, bologna arguments is to cook the books and crosstalk about completely different things. It is bullcrap, but you guys wolf it down like chocolate cake. Just proves how dumb you are when it comes to economics.

Nothing looks as good as the camerawork in the BBC David Attenborough series'.

Nothing, not film, not game, not cgi. They have the best shots. Fact.

Indeed it was not!
>> ^thegrimsleeper:
That was not CGI. cringes

That was not CGI. *cringes*

>> ^redyellowblue:
I can feel the fakeness too. The TV base looks pretty wide and yet it tips over like It was balancing on a narrow base. The cat doesn't even flinch when the loud noise crashes. CGI test would be my bet. Its funny though if it were real. The cat just doesn't give an F.


Its not CGI, its too imperfect. No animator would ad the jiggle at the end.

Also, it looks perfectly able to tip

and another thing, the cat doesnt flinch cos its a bad ass cat. And evil

>> ^zomgunicorns:
why would anyone volunteer to get bit by one of those, even for National Geographic, unless that was CGI lol.. they could of just used a hotdog


It's not cgi, have a look at the toe, it's a very fake foot.

i'm gonna downvote this and i'm gonna tell you why
i feel that people who downvoted the original video of unfortunate puppy being thrown off the cliff, thus denying other sifters the option to see it on the sift if they choose to do so, have censored themselves from the offline reality. what's the point - the video is out there anyway, it won't go away no matter how you wish it. you may dislike it because it's cruel, you may dislike it because it casts bad light on US military, you may even dislike it because it reminds you that there's a war going on in Iraq, but don't blame it for being a true account of the times we live in. this shit really happened, people, it's not cgi and green-screen. sure, no human being likes looking at puppies being tortured, but that's exactly the reason the original video deserves to be on the sift even more so than this and other related posts

like choggie says, piece of string and a couple of rehearsals. you don't need cgi.

i agree it is not cgi, that would be total overkill, like using a darkside sniper rifle to shoot a small piece of metal for no reason.

Why the killing tag?
I'm torn on this one. The tracers are cool just because it's not CGI. However, why have these canons in the first place?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

These are cool. And this one is defintely not CGI. It's funny, when you focus on the people components, the picture disappears.