PDA

View Full Version : FX work so good it'll make you cry ;-)


(...)
04-29-2002, 03:44 PM
Hi all,

I've finally finished my reel and I wanted to share it with the world. Please feel free to post crits and comments and stuff. :)

The whole damn thing: (DivX, 6MB, 360x288)
http://www.classicgaming.com/hyperem/storage/small.avi

Stills:
[<i>images removed, cuz they're all big and stuff</i>]
:)

Toeng.com
04-29-2002, 10:01 PM
OMG ... I haven't downloaded the movie yet, but is it going to be a long movie??? cuz I see a lot of different actions in the clips that won't fit a short storyline :D

(...)
04-30-2002, 02:01 PM
OMG ... I haven't downloaded the movie yet, but is it going to be a long movie??? cuz I see a lot of different actions in the clips that won't fit a short storyline

Oops, I forgot to mention. The movie is one minute long and has no storyline (it's a series of 7 FX shots in 3 scenes).

(...)
05-03-2002, 02:33 PM
Why do my threads always sink into oblivion with no responses?

Genuine question. :shrug:

puddlefish
05-03-2002, 02:45 PM
Why do my threads always sink into oblivion with no responses?

Genuine question.

- I think maybe because your images take so long to download. Not everyone will wait around. Try making them smaller.

urgaffel
05-03-2002, 06:39 PM
Can't get the movie...

ACFred
05-03-2002, 10:33 PM
Hey there,

Looked at your reel and it looks promising. Initially, I liked the silent movie look because it worked for the cathedral shot and helped to create drama in an otherwise mundane shot.
I'd recommend dumping the old film look for the rest of your shots though, simply because filtering the hell out of your plate and CG overlay could be perceived as hiding some imperfections. I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but creating a real-world situation and showing a potential employer that you can not only create nice looking sets (and yours are quite good) and do decent matchmoving (again, nice job there) but you can also effectively match the lighting and texturing of a composited shot.

It's pretty obvious you have the skills, but I think the presentation should be looked at a bit more closely. The shots you chose are fine but, like I said, I'd have the silent era inspiration in only one shot and make the rest of them conventional pieces that would show an employer that you can come in an rock the house with real-world footage.

As for your screen captures, man, that's probably why you don't get many responses. Each of them is over 200KB. I have a cable modem, so it eats that stuff up pretty easily, but for those on slower lines or if your server is being taxed heavily, it could take forever to just download the stills, let alone download a 6MB movie. Again, this goes to presentation (a huge problem across the majority of the posts on this site). People are looking at a lot of posts and want to get in, post, and get out. Below I've attached a 35KB image which I think is more effective at enticing people to download your reel. It's quick, clean, and reads easily.

Anyway, I'd like to post more specific comments on each shot but I'm short on time. Let me know if you want that and I'll come back later and address each one, although I think that overall you have some really nice shots.

Keep it up!

xynaria
05-04-2002, 09:56 AM
"Why do my threads always sink into oblivion with no responses? "

Whilst you are presumably being heavily ironic with your title of the thread it kinda still jars a little and as others ahave said ... have you ever heard of compression?.. The pics you post aren't done a service by their size and doing as ACFred has suggested will probably garner you far greater reaction than at present.... Sorry I'm on dial up and haven't time to even d/l 6mb at the moment . :)

FBMachine
05-04-2002, 11:36 AM
"Why do my threads always sink into oblivion with no responses?"
Because I'm attracted to shiny things, and your pics looked serious. :bounce: :drool: I decided to look anyway though, since you made me feel bad for not looking at your non-shiny things, and it definetly was cool! The film look threw me off a bit, though the avi compression might have added to that as well. Like when panning away from the hand rail on that bridge shot, it looked a little jumpy for a moment, and I couldn't tell if it was the film effect, a crappy VHS, or a stutter in the match moving? It was just awkward for a moment.. Also, that message "Yes, the scenery was 100% CGI!" was a little hammy, I think you could get the point across with a simple "All scenery 100% CGI", but that's just my opinion. Anyway! It was definetly cool! :thumbsup:
Dan

Skippy
05-04-2002, 11:54 AM
Try spending more time with the basics of art and photography. Your 3d modeling, lighting, texturing, and compositing are not to a point where they grab attention and pull you in asking for more.

please don't be a cry baby....
:hmm:

GRMac13
05-04-2002, 01:45 PM
hmmm..pretty good work. Tho, I have to agree w/ ACFred on overusing that silent film look. Also, there seems to be a glitch in that clip of the building explosion. Seems to have a bad a frame or maybe it's my eyes from staring at this monitor 24/7. I also agree with FBMachine on losing that "Yes, the scenery was 100% CGI." phrase. Just showing your wires frames, and plates on separate passes does the job. A certain amount of modesty goes a long way. Good Luck.

(...)
05-04-2002, 10:39 PM
I think maybe because your images take so long to download

Oops, sorry about that. I'm on a fast connection, so I have no frame of reference for how long is too long a download.

Can't get the movie...

Really? Usually my site host's server is pretty stable. They have just had a server move so perhaps that's why the download wasn't working.

I'd recommend dumping the old film look for the rest of your shots though, simply because filtering the hell out of your plate and CG overlay could be perceived as hiding some imperfections.

That's what I thought, but my teacher said "Filter it, it'll look better on video, there's no such thing as cheating on CG etc". I wasn't sure, so I wanted to check it out here.

Anyway, I'd like to post more specific comments on each shot but I'm short on time. Let me know if you want that and I'll come back later and address each one

Yes please.

jeferichardson
05-07-2002, 10:35 PM
I DL your movie. Its Great. The Only shot I have to make comments about is the last Explosion shot. It dosnt look right. Probably because its CG. I think the fire is wrong. Maybe a scale issue?? Another shot is the WaterFall,,, the camera suddenly is in motion or zoom. Rework the animation to get up to speed, instead of a sudden movement or zoom.
I dont know exactly how much experience you have..... But if you are a student, this is some really good work. I teach VFX and Compositing at Vancouver Film School, And I have seen alot of student work. Yours is good.

Yaks
05-08-2002, 03:22 AM
why is the last couldn't play???:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

(...)
05-08-2002, 09:30 AM
I dont know exactly how much experience you have..... But if you are a student, this is some really good work. I teach VFX and Compositing at Vancouver Film School, And I have seen alot of student work. Yours is good.

I am a student, but I finish school in a month. I just really want to make sure I don't suck before I try to get a job with this reel! ;)

why is the last couldn't play???

I don't understand the question. Wouldn't the movie play?

PS: Skippy, don't feel you have to edit your post on my account. I appreciate your honesty.

Skyraider3D
05-08-2002, 09:36 PM
Very nice work :) I like the oldfashioned feel to it. It doesnt seem photorealistic though - the special effects at least (water, fire...). So keep polishing your excellent skills :thumbsup:

stunndman
05-08-2002, 10:18 PM
hey (...) - that's a nick to my liking :) - here some quick impressions

- the waterfall looks good at the top but rather unbelievable at the point were the falling water collides with the river's surface - the water steam is flickering and gives the impression of an high overall speed - i think the water cloud should be moving slower (being more turbulent at the wall and getting slower and more cloud like the farther away the cloud drifts)

- the surface of the river - i can't see if the surface of the river shows any signs of the impact - there should be foamy white water maybe - maybe i can't see it because of the flickering water clouds?

- the explosion - i'm not sure about the white smoke at the start of the explosion - maybe it's just too much - but i'm definitely not certain on this one

- the explosion does not affect anything except the house and the lantern in front of it - maybe blast the windows from the neighbouring houses too (partially) - or even crack the front wall a little to show that the house was exposed to a very high pressure

- timing - the shots are quite short and i couldn't judge them without reviewing them a view times - maybe give them some more room

zen
05-09-2002, 03:36 AM
i aint crying.

hypercube
05-09-2002, 05:06 AM
Interesting stuff. I won't get into the debate about the thread title ;)

The church interior is really nice, and the walk along the railing. Definitely need to ditch the filter though, it not only makes things look odd, it's also hard to tell how successful or unsuccessful the compositing is. Soft shadow on the walls in the first shot seems ok, soft shadow under the hand on the railing doesn't seem right.

The waterfall shot has some definite problems, including the mechanical feeling camera pullout. That may just be jumpy AVI playback, but if not, comes off as very CG. Will second and third the comments about the waterfall, the mist is extremely not right, looks like very large particles popping out or recycling? I think with some nice flowing realistic spray it could totally sell it.

The explosion's been gone over, that needs the most work..can break it down, but already pretty windy in this post :)

All that said, really nice effort regardless, and definitely high level for student work. Keep on keepin' on.

xynaria
05-09-2002, 05:29 AM
Finally d/led the avi.
Agree about loosing the 'backgrounds are all cg' and just showing the wireframes... maybe even a reveal of the wireframes in the shot might accomplish this better. I thought overall the modelling and texturing was pretty good but the tell tale signs for me were...First clip.. the shadow.. looks like your using Max and .. I would play around and see if you can get that more convincing.
Waterfall er.. why do it? Sorry but I've yet to see one that truly works and the 'foam' at the bottom ruins what you might just have got away with on the waterflow and seems really ill conceived.
Explosion, looks like .. er Combustion/fire as they call it. this is not my favourite piece of Max (or if it isn't Max whatever programme it is seems like has same problems)..Point being it looks like a piece of limited cg rather than an explosion.
Like someone else pointed out the camera moves are noticeably jerky, and draw attention to themselves regardless by being noticeably bad camera moves. Even when pyrotechnical camera moves are used that appear stunning.. if you notice them overtly then it's arguable they aren't working.
Sorry if I seem a little harsh here but you are trying to acheive some kind of photorealism and kinda have to be judged on that basis. Otherwise in a more stylised concept I would say you would probably be pretty successful and I was pretty impressed by the modelling, texturing and overall light matching :)

(...)
05-09-2002, 01:41 PM
hey (...) - that's a nick to my liking

Couldn't think of a witty username. :)

I won't get into the debate about the thread title

Ugh! I'm going to regret using that title ;) . It's all about suggestion. If you do a thread that advertises its contents to be "the best CG ever" (or something to that effect), then people will either agree or do their best to challenge the statement. Either way, it's useful responses.

It's also the reason for the "backgrounds are all CG" statement in the end credits (that and because I've had people look at it and think the film is done with scene extension rather than scene creation).

Waterfall er.. why do it? Sorry but I've yet to see one that truly works

That's why I did it :) . IMO it's better to try something and fail than to automatically assume it can't be done. I know it's generally not a good idea to put failed attempts into a demoreel, but I think it's as good a CG waterfall as any I've seen outside of mainstream film (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Sorry if I seem a little harsh here but you are trying to acheive some kind of photorealism and kinda have to be judged on that basis.

Good, that's what I was hoping people would do.

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 06:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.