Bad CGI effects

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2012   #61
The most common "Bad CG" in my opinion, comes from these mistakes:

1) The lighting/shading of the CG elements doesn't match the photographed plate too well

2) Somebody (the director? the VFX supervisor?) decided to stick stylized-looking CG into an otherwise photoreal shot with high-contrast photography.

3) Motionblur on the CG is off (usually "exaggerated moblur" I think, or moblur that is very different in look from moblur in the filmed footage)

4) The motion of CG elements has no grounding in realistic physics (often seen when a CG helicopter or plane is flying through the footage... you can tell that its just moving along a spline path without rolling/banking/pitching properly).

5) CG humans/characters perform gravity defying feats (like jumping from a cliff onto a spaceship), without realistic acceleration/decelleration/momentum being used).

6) A lot of CG fluid-effects I see in Movies/TV shows (smoke, explosions) look very artificial. In many, the fire/smoke doesn't look or move entirely naturally, or uses a too low-res simulation, resulting in serious scale-problems. An example would be a large, rising fireball that is several meters across behaving like a fireball that is 50 cm across at most. This problem will make a lot of today's movies age badly I think. Everytime somebody watches the fire/smoke scenes in today's movies 10 years from now, they will instantly go "that explosing/fireball/smoke plume looks sooo fake"...
 
Old 03 March 2012   #62
Here's some realities of the glorious field that is cgi.. and the 'variables' affecting final output

- show has low budget, which means low bids on shots which means that shot had 1 or 2 days
- turn around for the full episode with 100 shots was 5 days
- director/producer had a 'vision' of what the shot should look like ignoring any rational input
- 180 degree creative direction change same day the shot was due
- 'I know it when I see it' attitude from director resulting in wasted time and crappy final result
- shot went through 101 iterations; and was pixel noodled to death
- studio pipeline lacking linear workflow or just lacking proper workflow to begin with
- junior artist without proper supervision
- overworked artist that's been crunching for the past 2 months
- poor art direction/no art direction/no sequence sup
- on set lighting inappropriate for greenscreen/bluescreen or no onset vfx/cg sup at all
- too many cooks in the kitchen; director/producer/executive have all contradicting thoughts on the shot

Predictably time/money is the driving force behind quality of the shots; computer hardware/software is secondary. I don't know anyone working in this industry that thinks 'gee I'm gonna make this shot look like crap'. Everyone wants to make a great looking shot but a lot of times the 'realities' of production have another plan.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #63
Originally Posted by Sean121: I'm surprised to still see it in 2012, with the advances in processing power, software and talent. If the project was seriously low budget then it's excusable. Take Terra Nova. The effects were more realistic in Jurrasic Park which is 19 years old. Then there's The Walking Dead. The CGI effects look artificial. I'd say they were on par with a decent student project., but not to the standard one would expect for a final production.

Your thoughts?


I can't tell if bad CG is meant to be used as a running joke. Or an excuse to make fun of '50s sci-fi movies. See http://the25threich.com/
 
Old 03 March 2012   #64
Originally Posted by DSW: I don't think that the viewing public cares at all. I know several families who've watched TerraNova and they loved the story and dinosaurs. NOT ONE mentioned bad special effects or "poor comps" - they just liked the show. You can judge CG as good or bad, but most don't see it that way - IMO.


People that watch and like badly written/produced shows do not notice any bad FX shots being used.

Last edited by ShawnDriscoll : 03 March 2012 at 11:20 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #65
On shitty compositing, here's a few gems from "V". The greenscreen shots on that show were so badly composited that a blind man would have been offended.



-


See how they've just neglected to remove the green bouncelight from the greenscreen? And these arent the worst parts

Last edited by Krotma : 03 March 2012 at 01:34 PM. Reason: grammar
 
Old 03 March 2012   #66
Originally Posted by teruchan: It's all about time. I know some guys who have done great work in big films and have also worked on SyFy Channel flicks. No matter how great their skill, or whatever the budget, if you have to fart out a completed creature in a few days, from concept to final rig, it ain't going to be great.


Exactly! In episodic TV or very short prod film you simply can't slave over each shot. You would be lucky to get one round of notes on a shot and being done is king above all other concerns. Even with a sizable team this is still true.

The real trick is to write, direct and shoot with this known limitation in mind so you are producing a handful of good efficient shots versus a whole bunch of shots that are all over the creative map. I'll trot out Monsters as exhibit A. Shot a day in post for one guy doesn't sound like a recipe for quality in Film VFX but Gareth pulled it off because he planned, wrote, directed and shot it knowing he's on the hook for the VFX so this better be efficient.
__________________
 
Old 03 March 2012   #67
Hello,
We are Render-IT, a company set up to satisfy a distinct need within the
Computer Generated Imagery sectors.

At Render-IT the bulk of our clients are most pleased with the care,
attention to detail and generous technical support we offer.

We built our network ourselves, refining it carefully over time. We
are one of the world’s longest operating render farms and our 10 years of
experience means there is not a technical complication that we cannot deal
with; often we are consulted just to trouble shoot a render setup. We always
want our clients to be fully satisfied with our service and as such we offer
an evaluation service free of charge where we render a section of your
project to iron out any technical issues that might arise before the project
is submitted to render.



We work with the following sectors (amongst others)

* Visual Effects,
* 3D Animation,
* Architectural Models,
* Product Design,
* Marketing,

The Render-IT Team
 
Old 03 March 2012   #68
Oh look, in-line ads!

(I would also like to note this is my 666th post. That's gotta count for something!)
__________________

Last edited by sconlogue : 03 March 2012 at 02:17 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #69
I'm not sure a topic about bad CG is the best place to whore your company.
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
Old 03 March 2012   #70
Originally Posted by Krotma: On shitty compositing, here's a few gems from "V". The greenscreen shots on that show were so badly composited that a blind man would have been offended.



-


See how they've just neglected to remove the green bouncelight from the greenscreen? And these arent the worst parts


The Weather Channel does better green screen.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #71
Originally Posted by sconlogue: The real trick is to write, direct and shoot with this known limitation in mind so you are producing a handful of good efficient shots versus a whole bunch of shots that are all over the creative map.


I try to storyboard everything. EVERYTHING... Less, if no, surprises later that way.

Yey! Render-IT made it to the party! Haven't seen a pasted post of theirs in over a year. Still no link provided. No, I won't Google you again.

Last edited by ShawnDriscoll : 03 March 2012 at 02:50 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #72
Wink lol

I just love these guys who watch all day and every day trailers and then go trought every frame searching for bugs and flaws, we all make mistakes and as more new people come to the industry they make mistakes.

Saying that DNeg(naming some company) made an bad cgi is a bit insulting and unprofessional as some people consider their work as best in industry.
 
Old 03 March 2012   #73
Originally Posted by Boris268:

Saying that DNeg(naming some company) made an bad cgi is a bit insulting and unprofessional as some people consider their work as best in industry.

Agreed...It is monday morning quarterbacking at its best.


Originally Posted by chow: Here's some realities of the glorious field that is cgi.. and the 'variables' affecting final output

- show has low budget, which means low bids on shots which means that shot had 1 or 2 days
- turn around for the full episode with 100 shots was 5 days
- director/producer had a 'vision' of what the shot should look like ignoring any rational input
- 180 degree creative direction change same day the shot was due
- 'I know it when I see it' attitude from director resulting in wasted time and crappy final result
- shot went through 101 iterations; and was pixel noodled to death
- studio pipeline lacking linear workflow or just lacking proper workflow to begin with
- junior artist without proper supervision
- overworked artist that's been crunching for the past 2 months
- poor art direction/no art direction/no sequence sup
- on set lighting inappropriate for greenscreen/bluescreen or no onset vfx/cg sup at all
- too many cooks in the kitchen; director/producer/executive have all contradicting thoughts on the shot

Predictably time/money is the driving force behind quality of the shots; computer hardware/software is secondary. I don't know anyone working in this industry that thinks 'gee I'm gonna make this shot look like crap'. Everyone wants to make a great looking shot but a lot of times the 'realities' of production have another plan.


This is a great post...
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 03 March 2012   #74
Originally Posted by teruchan: It's all about time. I know some guys who have done great work in big films and have also worked on SyFy Channel flicks. No matter how great their skill, or whatever the budget, if you have to fart out a completed creature in a few days, from concept to final rig, it ain't going to be great.

I also agree about the director. Stephen Sommers has no shortage of budget in his films.


You totalled it sir, I am currently working for a studio who delivers SyFy Original movies, from shooting to VFX, complete package.
I would have to model a creature from a concept where there is hardly any detail,
Then I got to sculpt it, retopo it, texture it, rig it (sometimes I can pass this to someone else)
all by myself and all this is done for 5 working days for a Hero Character,

And we get like 10-20 shots per film to deliver the complete shot per person meaning animate, light , render, and composite

Your average SyFy flicks VFX takes most 2 months to complete. So, there goes your quality down the drain... The artists however can do great things if time given.
__________________
Website
timucinozger.com
Reel 2014 and RnD
vimeo.com/user7844693
 
Old 03 March 2012   #75
Originally Posted by DePaint: The most common "Bad CG" in my opinion, comes from these mistakes:

1) The lighting/shading of the CG elements doesn't match the photographed plate too well

2) Somebody (the director? the VFX supervisor?) decided to stick stylized-looking CG into an otherwise photoreal shot with high-contrast photography.

3) Motionblur on the CG is off (usually "exaggerated moblur" I think, or moblur that is very different in look from moblur in the filmed footage)

4) The motion of CG elements has no grounding in realistic physics (often seen when a CG helicopter or plane is flying through the footage... you can tell that its just moving along a spline path without rolling/banking/pitching properly).

5) CG humans/characters perform gravity defying feats (like jumping from a cliff onto a spaceship), without realistic acceleration/decelleration/momentum being used).

6) A lot of CG fluid-effects I see in Movies/TV shows (smoke, explosions) look very artificial. In many, the fire/smoke doesn't look or move entirely naturally, or uses a too low-res simulation, resulting in serious scale-problems. An example would be a large, rising fireball that is several meters across behaving like a fireball that is 50 cm across at most. This problem will make a lot of today's movies age badly I think. Everytime somebody watches the fire/smoke scenes in today's movies 10 years from now, they will instantly go "that explosing/fireball/smoke plume looks sooo fake"...


Explanations for your obsevations, why these happen
1)---- never received and HDR capture for my cg shots for proper lighting
2)----
3)---- excess motion blur and camera shake is actually hiding something even worse
4)---- modellers animating,
5)---- look above answer
6)---- compositors trying to use Maya Fluids, or using fume presets
__________________
Website
timucinozger.com
Reel 2014 and RnD
vimeo.com/user7844693
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.