|
||||||||
New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1026 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
But let's not lose track that this thread is about a TV show. The very latest FX aren't going to be applied here. TV FX are generally a few steps behind the latest cinematic advances - so even from that perspective there will be plenty ongoing room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1027 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#1028 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
I think at this stage we can still tell the difference, that's based on my own experience and also people I know IRL. Your own experience may be different.
But let's not lose track that this thread is about a TV show. The very latest FX aren't going to be applied here. TV FX are generally a few steps behind the latest cinematic advances - so even from that perspective there will be plenty ongoing room for improvement. ), but they still struggled with the facial expressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1029 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
On the point you quoted? Sure, though I don't think many would dissagree that TV FX are generally behind the latest cinematic FX. But If you feel otherwise fair enough.
I'm suggesting that we agree to disagree that fx is (or can currently already be) indistinguishable compared to a set piece. You disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, but I do feel otherwise, as I've stated. With an unlimited budget, fx is, or can be just as good as a set piece, which erases the concept that fx has a long way to go yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1030 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
I'm suggesting that we agree to disagree that fx is (or can currently already be) indistinguishable compared to a set piece. You disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, but I do feel otherwise, as I've stated.
Quote:
With an unlimited budget, fx is or can be just as good as a set piece, which erases the concept that fx has a long way to go yet.
We're not talking about unlimited budgets we're taking about real life. In real life fx departments have fixed budgets so "unlimited", and your point, become completely meaningless. Sets are only a part of FX. There is a long way to go before we can't tell the difference between an actual human actor and a CGI character. Although you will no doubt also disagree about that. Some things never change though, I remember having a similar conversation with someone in the mid 90s just after Independence Day came out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1031 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up.
Quote:
We're not talking about unlimited budgets we're taking about real life. In real life fx departments have fixed budgets so "unlimited", and your point, become completely meaningless. Sets are only a part of FX.
Quote:
There is a long way to go before we can't tell the difference between an actual human actor and a CGI character. Although you will no doubt also disagree about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1032 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
Because after I seemingly concluded that we had reached an impasse, you still felt the need to extend your reply to cover more than was needed?
Quote:
I think at this stage we can still tell the difference, that's based on my own experience and also people I know IRL. Your own experience may be different.[
That was specifically about CGI sets, which I didn't raise again until you did. You then suggested to agree to dissagree about the wider topic of fx as a whole. You do seem to have a hard time keeping up with what's being posted. Quote:
It's not a meaningless argument though, is it? My argument is that special effects (CGI for locations) are more than capable of portraying something as real as a set. Budget is irrelevant; technology either enables it, or doesn't. Funding only applies when you're on a schedule.
It is meaningless because it's like saying if we had an unlimited budget we could cure all diseases, therefore we can now cure all diseases. You've clearly never heard of R&D. Quote:
[You've just changed the argument here. We weren't on about characters, we were on about sets.
No, if you can cast your mind to as far back as yesterday our discussion about CGI included a person walking into a room and sitting on a char scene and the audience not being able to tell the difference between real life and CGI. The conversation has been about special effects, all special effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1033 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Nope, i wrote:
Quote:
On the point you quoted? Sure, though I don't think many would dissagree that TV FX are generally behind the latest cinematic FX. But If you feel otherwise fair enough.
Quote:
It is meaningless because it's like saying if we had an unlimited budget we could cure all diseases, therefore we can now cure all diseases. You've clearly never heard of R&D.
Quote:
No, if you can cast your mind to as far back as yesterday our discussion about CGI included a person walking into a room and sitting in a char scene and not being able to tell the difference between real life and CGI. The conversation has been about special effects, all special effects.
To put this as simple as I can; visual special effects of objects, explosions, settings and even animals to some degree I don't believe are capable of becoming anymore realistic than they already are. Computer-generated-people on the other hand is something different, but I wasn't initially on about that because we were comparing the special effects of a Trek show, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has attempted to run an all cgi-trek show. Clear and simple enough for you? Feel free to disagree, I'm sure you have a post at the ready. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1034 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
You guys are having an interesting debate.
![]() I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production. We are getting close to that but, i'm sorry, we're not there yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1035 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1036 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
No, you wrote:Keep Up!
Quote:
Well that's a piss poor comparison. Some diseases simply aren't yet curable, whereas we already have all the special effects we need.
Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously. Quote:
We were obviously having two different conversations, as I was under the assumption you were talking specifically about the room, and the chair, not the person
Im not surprised, you have been consistently unfocused throughout the conversation. Quote:
B]To put this as simple as I can; visual special effects of objects, explosions, settings and even animals to some degree I don't believe are capable of becoming anymore realistic than they already are. [/b]Computer-generated-people on the other hand is something different, but I wasn't initially on about that because we were comparing the special effects of a Trek show, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has attempted to run an all cgi-trek show. Nah I'll just refer you to my earlier comment about having a similar conversation about fx back in the 90s after ID4. Rather than keep going round in circles for the next 20 years, perhaps we can leave if it for now an then pick up in 20 years and you can admit with some embarrasment how naive you were back in 2016.
Clear and simple enough for you? Feel free to disagree,I'm sure you have a post at the ready. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1037 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
I'm not on about full CGI. I'm specifically on about what I've mentioned above; objects, explosions, settings and animals.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#1038 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Note the "on that point you quoted"....was about fx as a whole.
You followed that with post #1030: We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up. That was in reply to posts #1026 & #1027. I was happy to conclude at that point, but you seemingly couldn't let it rest and had to have the final word. Quote:
Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.
Quote:
But you'd agree that the technology behind even those things is continually improving and that they will eventually become entirely indistinguishable from real life.
Quote:
I mean we are really close to it now but no quite there - it's still possible to tell CGI from physical effects in many cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1039 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
I'll refer you back to bla bla bla..,
Quote:
If you removed your head from your rear-end, you may get some clarity.
No need to throw your toys out the pram. Despite dissagreeing we were having a civilised conversation. If this how you want to proceed I'll leave you to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1040 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
No need to throw your toys out the pram. Despite dissagreeing we were having a civilised conversation. If this how you want to proceed I'll leave you to it.
Quote:
You do seem to have a hard time keeping up with what's being posted.
Quote:
You've clearly never heard of R&D.
Quote:
Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.
Quote:
Im not surprised, you have been consistently unfocused throughout the conversation.
Quote:
Nah I'll just refer you to my earlier comment about having a similar conversation about fx back in the 90s after ID4. Rather than keep going round in circles for the next 20 years, perhaps we can leave if it for now an then pick up in 20 years and you can admit with some embarrasment how naive you were back in 2016.
Quote:
I'll refer you back to bla bla bla...
You seem to be unable to accept that someone else has a different view to you, and thus they must be wrong for you are incapable of being. I've explained by position in my more recent posts, how convenient it is that you've overlooked them. Quote:
No, you agreed to disagree at post 1026, by quoting a post which was about fx as a whole. It's really not that hard to follow.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1041 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
A civilised conversation?
Not obnoxious or sarcastic at all, are you? You seem to be unable to accept that someone else has a different view to you, and thus they must be wrong for you are incapable of being. I've explained by position in my more recent posts, how convenient it is that you've overlooked them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1042 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,218
|
I would say the effects in Westworld are pretty damm good, definitely the best for a TV show that I have seen and better than many movies.
And in terms of fully CGI, consider the new jungle book was fully green screen with only one actor, was filmed in a warehouse and yet completely feels 'real'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1043 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Yet none of those things you quoted are untrue.
Quote:
You have been unfocused throughout the discussion. You have had a hard time keeping up with what's been posted, and your knowledge has shown to lacking.
Quote:
I've been happy to acknowledge we have different views, that's not going to stop me offering my own views.
Quote:
I would say the effects in Westworld are pretty damm good, definitely the best for a TV show that I have seen and better than many movies. And in terms of fully CGI, consider the new jungle book was fully green screen with only one actor, was filmed in a warehouse and yet completely feels 'real'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1044 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
You guys are having an interesting debate.
![]() I would argue that special effect will reach their limit once it is possible to create any scene fully in CGI and it be impossible to tell the difference from real life. Also the cost of doing so will need to be reachable for any commercial tv production. We are getting close to that but, i'm sorry, we're not there yet. That said for many of the shots we do see today, the only reason you can tell they're not real, but CGI, is because you know the can't be real. For example the Yorktown in Star Trek: Beyond. What we see today maybe 95%-99% photo realistic, but there are other types of shot, other types of object that we just don't see in movies right now because they can't model them now. For example: The flocking behaviour of the swarm of ships we saw destroying the Enterprise in Star Trek: Beyond wasn't possible till fairly recently as the maths of flocking behaviour hadn't been worked out. Going back to Terminator 2: Judgement Day, the chrome/liquid metal look was chosen because it was one of the few photo realistic things they could model and render back then. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1045 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 12,197
|
Quote:
Yet your ... dialogue/mannerism is hardly as civilised as you claim it to be.
Quote:
You keep saying that, when I don't think I do. You keep changing the discussion, and then misquote me.
I haven't changed the discussion. I have been consistent throughout the conversation and it on screen for you and anyone to see. Quote:
[i would be interested at this point to know how you think the special effects (that aren't related to people) can be improved in the future, and how they're not perceived as real enough with what we are currently capable of. I can relate to the argument that people (in CGI) look like CGI, most of them anyway, but I can't say the same for other effects; I think they're at their pinnacle, and am curious how you think otherwise.
Well, you said you believe the fx in the marvel films are real enough, I personally don't and people I know don't either. If you do that's fair enough. However, the nature of the people who make fx will be to strive to make everyone not be able to tell the difference, so they will continue to work hard to achieve that, and fx will continue to improve as a result.Also, as posted yesterday, taking the spacebase in Beyond as example. Rather than have the audience marvel at what they recognise as great CGI, have them genuinely not being able to tell if its CGI or an actual set. And yes size is a consideration, but that in itself where future advancents are, making backgrounds look real enough that despite the size they truly challenge the audiences perception. I know your counter argument to this was that credibility would be difficult given the size, but using this logic, it could be argued that given the destruction and spectacle in the marvel films, credibility is also difficult - yet you can't tell the difference between real & CGI. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1046 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 322
|
Quote:
That said for many of the shots we do see today, the only reason you can tell they're not real, but CGI, is because you know the can't be real. For example the Yorktown in Star Trek: Beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1047 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Simple shots of the Enterprise entering spacedock in Star Trek III looked more 'real' than the Yorktown. Models and miniatures still have a huge part to play in special effects, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1048 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Angel Grove
Posts: 2,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1049 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,601
|
Putting it in CAPS doesnt make the news any newer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1050 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,156
|
More casting news
http://www.spoilertv.com/2016/11/sta...jones-and.html |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:22.




), but they still struggled with the facial expressions.
