Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?

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.

CGI hasn't become 100% photo realistic yet. I watched final fantasy kingsglaive at the weekend and that was extremely good (graphically, not as an actual movie ), but they still struggled with the facial expressions.

Oh, I agree that tv fx is a little behind on cinematic fx, but I've already stated that (moving forward) fx in general will likely become cheaper.

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.

We reached that stage yesterday on this point, not sure why you're still bringing it up.


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.

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?


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.


You've just changed the argument here. We weren't on about characters, we were on about sets.

Nope, i wrote:

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.


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.


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.

No, you wrote:
Keep Up!


Well that's a piss poor comparison. Some diseases simply aren't yet curable, whereas we already have all the special effects we need.


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.


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.

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.

I'm not on about full CGI. I'm specifically on about what I've mentioned above; objects, explosions, settings and animals.

Note the "on that point you quoted"....was about fx as a whole.


Now I'm really struggling to take you seriously.


Im not surprised, you have been consistently unfocused throughout the conversation.


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.

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. 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.

I'll refer you back to post #1029 where I've stated: 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.

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.


If you removed your head from your rear-end, you may get some clarity.


I'd say some films are already there to be honest. I'll grant that we're not quite there with trying to mimic a person, but we're close, however, as already stated, elements of sets (or entire sets themselves), explosions, and some animals are already at that stage, and I don't see how they can be perfected any more than they currently are.


But not all?

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.


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.

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.


I've mentioned posts #1026 & #1027 here:
It seems it is you, and not me, who has problems following. Maybe I should draw you a map or something...

Yet none of those things you quoted are untrue. 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. if these things make you feel uncomfortable I suggest you take an inward look rather than lashing out at me for stating the obvious. I've been happy to acknowledge we have different views, that's not going to stop me offering my own views. That's what discussion is. Don't confuse that with me being "unable to accept that someone else has a differing view". Happy to talk to you about Star Trek, reboots and even fx, but at this stage I feel you're more about arguing than discussing anything.

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'.

Yet your ... dialogue/mannerism is hardly as civilised as you claim it to be.


You keep saying that, when I don't think I do. You keep changing the discussion, and then misquote me.


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.


Good examples.

I agree with this. There's still a ways to go before CGI is 100% realistic. Convincing CGI shots in today's movies are carefully constructed, selected and constrained so photorealism is achieved. There are still limits on what can be modelled and the shots we see now are chosen to fit within those constraints. I would say development is still needed in the area of mathematical modeling of the physical properties of different kinds of materials, objects as they break, organic objects and especially human and animal movement.

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.

This is an internet forum, tone, mannerisms etc perception is created by the reader. You could read a post in any number of ways based on how you happen to feel at the time.


I haven't changed the discussion. I have been consistent throughout the conversation and it on screen for you and anyone to see.


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.

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.

In what way was the Yorktown unrealistic to you? Did you feel the same way about the CGI Enterprise as well?

STAR TREK DISCOVERY; NEW CAPTAIN ANNOUNCED

Putting it in CAPS doesnt make the news any newer.

More casting news
http://www.spoilertv.com/2016/11/sta...jones-and.html