Is CGI getting worse?

The biggest problem with CGI in movies (they get it right for the news) is that everything is too bright and "dry". Real things have weight that plays with angles and light.

>shockingly a Blu-Ray is garbage
I got the Ultimate DVD and feel no need to upgrade.

same here i just want a nice copy of it on blu ray also

Attached: 16359.jpg (3840x2160, 723K)

I remember when me and my friends would play and replay the future war part of the VHS. That battle was the coolest thing we had ever seen at that point in life.
youtube.com/watch?v=ih_l0vBISOE

0:27 really hammered home that THIS MOVIE WASN'T PLAYING

The Hobbit 2 trailer had awful CGi

CGI itself doesn't get worse. It's just that artists abuse and misuse CGI instead of spending some time on practical effects.
CGI is excellent to add finishing touches to scenes etc. But if you rely only on CGI it will look unnatural and bad.

CGI isn't getting worse, it's only that capeshit/Disney studios figured out that their viewers don't give a fuck about that, so why even bother wasting time and money?

It's simple, Disney and capeshit studios make fast food like flicks while yelling at their chinese rendering slaves to render faster, while for example in BR2049 Villeneuve and MPC the visual effects company literally worked for an entire year just on that single Rachael shot alone.

Attached: br2049_rachael_mpc4.webm (1920x1080, 2.7M)

That's like saying is art getting worse.

Different studios, different budgets, different time constraints, etc, etc.

I wouldn't say lazy, more than it is being pushed out n unrealistic time frames. The amount of CGI work has increased, but with set schedules, the CGI people have less time to work with scenes.
The less time you have, the less time you get to design and implementation, so a lot of stuff isn't great, it just is passably good enough.

>That's like saying is art getting worse.
it would be true, tho

problem is the overuse of CGI and studios not wanting to pay or wait for good CGI, everything uses CGI and good artists are not only expensive but limited in resources

so now they just use bugmen and poos to do a lot of work and also community college graduates

Tech is better, but the product keep getting worse

not at all
cgi is at its finest
its just that these companies cut alot of corners and have rushed dwadlines that make their cgi look like dog shit on a hot summer day

Also the same thing happened to the anime industry in Japan.

Oversaturation means the good artists are stretched thin, but the demand for anime created all these shitty studios and the art of animation declined while studios kept cutting corners and also exporting their work to korean and chinese studios

Of course, everyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

It's getting more accessible technology

Thus means cheaper

Because it's cheaper to hire some indians to make a quick and shity CGI and spend the rest of the money on some celebrity

Attached: QIP Shot - Screen 304.jpg (525x544, 51K)

That would be 100% cgi today and it would look fucking garbage. Cgi may not be getting worse, but I can't imagine it overtaking well-done practical effects in photorealism.

Low effort clickbait. Everyone already knows the hobbit was shit. And no I'm not watching your shitty video.

>Is CGI getting worse?
No. Audience expectations changed.
>before: special effect is a guy in a costume and you can see the zipper if you look close enough
>"wow what a great movie did you see the monster it was so scary haha"
>now: special effect is done in a computer and looks leagues better
>"yeah but it's not perfect and it was made in a computer so i hate it"

also need to take into account 1080p vs 4k they also use to hide it alot better with motion blur and shadows

>outsorcing

>just lower your standards, bro

movies are way worse than before, but that apparently works because audience is way stupider than before.
the average moviegoer has lower standards, shorter attention span and base his opinion on the general consensus.
cgi isn't good because it doesn't need to be good, simple as that

its not. look at the CGI breakdowns from the girl with the dragon tatoo, released around the same time as the first hobbit film.

the CG is blended seamlessly with the rest of the film and used in several shots. the hobbit, and many of these other big budget action CG fests like marvel, look flimsy and rubbery for several reasons.

1: too much specular. render artists these days are in love with trying to get ultra realistic highlights on the CG characters right in frontal view of the camera. they crank up the specular channels and try to push minute details like pores through normal maps/displacement maps but are shooting in 4k. there is no hiding in 4k, you cant use the resolution to obscure imperfections or blend the highlights, so the characters appear over glossy or waxy.

2: too much animation, too little time. they are trying to cram too many motions in too short a shot, this is particularly egregious in the marvel films or the 3rd hobbit (stuff like legolas running on the collapsing bridge), so the animators have to make the movements happen in unnaturally fast ways or with jarring, weightless transitions instead of giving the time to let characters react to gravity and momentum. its not the animators faults 99% of the time, they just have to put too much into too short a shot.

3: outsourcing studios not communicating. when you have one studio doing one shot, one studio doing another, a third doing the rendering for those 2, and then a 4th cutting the scene together in editing, its no wonder why these shots seem jarring, unorganized, and loosely assembled. at that point there are too many parts not talking to each other and quality control goes out the window.

i could go on, there are more reasons, but these are the 3 big ones, aside from the most obvious overarching reason: budget. time is money, you run out of money, you run out of time. things get rushed like the 2nd hobbits theatrical release with an unfinished smaug.

Damn those Alita scenes look retarded. I knew it having a general for so long meant it was a long running troll.

Yes
The last movies to really "wow" me were Alita and Detective Pikachu
Beyond that, every other big budget action movie since 2017 has been a disappointment (Hellboy, Any Marvel movie, The Predator). All the big budget movies now have low budget CGI and all the low budget movies (like Replicas) have potato-tier CGI

>Alita and Detective Pikachu

Feel free to list a better example from that time period, it'll only help me better make my point

it's all about time/money/effort put in, some scenes of CGI in the LOTR movies were great and really pushed the boundaries of the technology at the time, like making gollum's believeable, but then some scenes were obviously rushed and has aged like shit in comparison.

why do people think CGI is some kind of computer magic that will get better with more powerful computers? You still need great artistic talent to pull off good looking shit.

It's not about processing power anymore and it hasn't been for a long time. CGI peaked with Davy Jones in 2006 because the artists were wizards who knew the importance of correct use of lighting. The amount of effort that went into this was immense.

People don't really seem to give a shit about good CGI anymore as evident by the box office numbers that capeshit generates, and movie studios know it. They know all they need is the minimum amount of effort required and they've got a free billion+ in box office revenue.

It's not getting worse, it's just the talented people involved in pushing the field forward is getting smaller and smaller.

I mean that they can only wow someone because they look good compared to the rest of pg13 gci-fests, not because they are something more than pg13 cgi-fests

No, not worse. We're just getting better at discerning it.

>want to compare cgi
>uses shitty 480p scenes
why this nigga do?

Did he unironically include the shot from Alien:Covenant with the PUPPET chestburster?

>Is CGI getting worse?

What?

Attached: Gemini Man - Behind-The-Scenes Featurette (2019) - Paramount Pictures_2.mp4_snapshot_00.48_[2019.07. (1920x1080, 162K)

Attached: Gemini Man - Behind-The-Scenes Featurette (2019) - Paramount Pictures_2.mp4_snapshot_00.46_[2019.07. (1920x1080, 199K)

This video is a crypto-Marvel shill. It starts off by praising Iron Man, and then doesn't use any Marvel films as examples of bad CGI, except for Black Panther because by now everybody has heard about the CGI team being shafted by an unreasonable deadline so it's got an "excuse" for looking like shit.

CGI should be used to enhance practical effects. Within reason, most things should be filmed practically. Having entire scenes, settings and characters made of CGI is dogshit and it always has been with very few exceptions. I genuinely don't care how much time or money it saves, it's worse.

>sound argument
>questionable tastes
It happens, dear user

>CGI should be used to enhance practical effects. Within reason, most things should be filmed practically. Having entire scenes, settings and characters made of CGI is dogshit and it always has been with very few exceptions. I genuinely don't care how much time or money it saves, it's worse.
/thread

More 'pro CGI artists' means greater chances for shitty ones.

>It's not just money. It's time for the artists and tech boys to actually work

user, time and money are often the same thing when it comes to work. If you want someone to work on a project for a single month full time, that's roughly 173 billable hours. If his hourly rate is 100 dollars, that's 17300 dollars. If you want him to work two months, that's 2x17300 dollars. If you want to employ another person to help him that's 2x2x17300 dollars. With modern movies, the reason why budgets are so big now is because you're often spending 100 million dollars just on CGI. Basically you'll be able to pay for 240 people to work full time on a project for 2 years assuming they charge 100 dollars an hour, including cost of rendering.

Watch the video.
This sort of proves the point as smiths face is a good reference point to build on.
If they'd built that face from scratch it would look shit

Lots of talented CGi artist still exist but don't expect anything from Pajeets to be competent

How does that fit with what we know about Hollywood? Namely, studios pulling wage cartels and unpaid overtime, and outsourcing to Mexico and Bangalore India?

SOTM proves CGI and practical effect mixing is actually the wave of the future

Attached: cant_keep_my_eyes_off_of_you.png (844x604, 699K)

Overuse has raped it:
youtube.com/watch?v=OZZ81-vW-Kc

There is only one artist every 1000 buttonclickers and only one master every 1000 artists. This has always benn true, and always will be.
If you are making ONE movie with the right amount of cgi and nothing more, you can put together a team (1 master and some artists) and create something that looks good.
When you are making dozens of movies with an homungous amount of superflous cgi, you have to settle for an army buttonclickers and you will inevitably create mediocre crap.

Yes especially mcu dc shit
Mainly it's a artstyle thing and rushed production
00s and 90s had some absolutely horrible infamously bad cgi but yeah as a whole 2010s movies are bloody horrible especially the stuff made in the last 8 years or so and it shows

TV shows have better cgi with more love put into them.

>that editing
>that cinematography
>that lighting
>that choreography
No amount of CGI could have saved this.

Wrong, you moron.

The Thing remains the perfect example of this.

Every MCU film. Cartoon CGI.

Attached: ezgif-2-6b03ee9d4ed5 (1).webm (500x200, 652K)

Is that shit in the actual movie?
For real?

>CGI isn't getting worse, it's only that capeshit/Disney studios figured out that their viewers don't give a fuck about that, so why even bother wasting time and money?
Yet they've had some of the best CG out there. Yeah yeah, Black Panther fight, we've heard it all already. The issue is there's only so much VFX teams to go around, and their habit of reshooting a lot means there's often no time to do effects.
That Black Panther scene people go on and on about, was reshot in October, delivered to the VFX house in December, and released in theaters in February. You can't do a good scene in just that time. If it had 10 months instead it would look fine.

You have to pick and choose the parts to concentrate the most time and money on because there isn't enough time and manpower to give everything equal focus. So parts always slip through the crack. The solution is to have longer post-production but that would kill their release dates that are announced well in advance.

If anything I think CG has taken a big leap in quality in the last 5 years. I thought it seemed like it was plateuing a little but stuff like Pixar films had a massive leap starting around The Good Dinosaur. I thought Toy Story 3 looked great but 4 makes it look incredibly dated in only 9 years. How to Train Your Dragon 3 too was a gigantic leap over 2, even though it's only five years newer.

Same goes for films. While there's still plenty of dodgy CG due to overuse, the best CG has been a big leap. The new Apes trilogy for instance, Blade Runner 2049, Thanos in the Avengers films, a lot of others come to mind as standouts that show a lot of advancement.

I'd say Jurassic Park was the peak but T2 still looks great as fuck

Good director, working with the best effects houses and giving them the time they need, is all that has to be done to have good CGI.

Pikachu in Detective Pikachu is superbly done. He straight up looks real in much of the film.

How you do mean? Even if you're hiring a Mexican firm to make your CGI and they charge half the rate that an American firm would, you still have to pay them. And even if you're not paying for their overtime, you still have to pay for their regular hours. I mean, all of these tricks you mention are just ways to get more hours out of your money but there's always a limit to this and when you're at that limit you still have to pay more money if you want people to work more hours on your movie.

That it literally from a movie announcement trailer in 2014, and a shitty gif to boot. That's not even Thanos' design in the two Avengers films he headlined.

Attached: 55265998max.jpg (768x431, 37K)

oh fuck off with this again, the only CG shot of JP that still looks good is the Rex in the rain as long as you don't look at its feet.

>If anything I think CG has taken a big leap in quality in the last 5 years.
Yeah, a leap of faith from the lion's head, but there was no bridge this time

So my point still stands, CGI has gotten worse

I would never disagree with that

The technology is better than ever but studios just shit out movies as fast as possible and outsource cgi to some village in India so the results are worse.

I'll harp on about this every CGI thread: CGI isn't getting worse, that practically isn't possible, it only gets better... but that's if we're just talking about rendering quality of the best examples of the top studios inching ever closer to photoreality.

CGI is subject to multiple variables. Implementation, time, budget, skill of the studio, etc etc... but my biggest problem with it is nearly always the ANIMATION itself.
>alright team, you need to depict this superhero doing an absurd, physically impossible fight move involving a triple backflip karate kick while on ice skates while juggling four diverse babies, you have one week week
>Christ, I can't animate that in a week
>just get it done!

>1 week later:
>here you go, I tried as best I as I could
>let's see here... photoreal, he's on iceskates... there's the juggling babies... there's the triple backflip... and the karate kick... nice! That's a wrap for us!
>but boss, it's literally just mechanically rotating through the air, like he's a bunraku puppet or something operated by people we can't see, the movement is freakishly unnatural, we can't use this!
>what do you mean? It looks fine to me! Let me call up the director...
>director here, looks fine to me! Thanks for your hard work! Computers are a miracle! Soon we won't even need actors!

Attached: eh, it's good enough.webm (720x300, 3M)

Nobody responded to you because you're fucking retarded

No, it hasn't

>I responded to a random post to tell it I wasn't responding it to

you have to be 18 to post here

It literally has not gotten worse and you'd have to be retarded to make such a claim.

>I'm literally blind and see no problem
fuck off, kid. Go back to capeshit

>but muh brack panter
Every time.

just watch avatar again

Attached: in-lovetiri.webm (1280x720, 998K)

The 2004 videogame-tier torch fire early on in the film always shocks me. Especially since there's incredible fire effects in the climax.

You're all looking into it too much. The difference between good and bad is weather it got outsourced to pajeets or not. Their poo-midas touch ruins everything they get their hands on.

Depends, if Avatar looks like the right and not the kino left, maybe

Attached: 1543558805741.webm (1194x333, 1.89M)

might be something they had to redo/did late when they didn't have much time

Attached: atokerina.webm (1280x720, 1.49M)

>weight affects light
come on now

avatar doesn't have any cats...

ya can't be THIS bluepilled...

just whining of incels

where are the cats?

Be wary of anyone talking about things having "weight" or movement being "fluid" (or "fluent") when it comes to animation or VFX. It's a sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, regardless of how validly those words could be used in a sentence when discussing these things.

It's akin to bringing up rotational velocidensity when talking about audio compression, except unironic.

Attached: 1534522760851.jpg (1920x1080, 1.3M)

those are na'vi...

Attached: confunded neyney.jpg (361x475, 40K)

kek

>bait so big that I had to zoom out
Here is your (you)

This is the first time I ever see actual Black Panther footage. I refuse to believe this shit was ranked so highly by critics.

>some CG is bad therefore the film can't be well reviewed

disney managed to trick people into believing it was a political manifesto and by doing so immunized it of all criticism

>some CG is bad
I didn't even mention CGI. Look at that footage with a straight face and tell me
>"yes this spectacular"
It's awful.

what the fuck am i looking at

Pajeets and Vietnamese will never exceed Europeans in any artform, and that's why it's degrading.

Spielberg's divine touch

>he thinks the CGI in Alita was bad
Oh dear sweetie, the guy in the video even said he regretted putting clips of Alita in the video because he hadn't actually seen the movie yet, maybe it's time you do the same....

Attached: hand.gif (800x328, 1.48M)

I'm not gonna click you shitty video, but no. CGI is getting amazing. As it gets more and more popular though, the shit artists get more and more work opportunities.

I wouldn´t say it´s getting worse, it´s just becoming less realistic. Those are 2 different things. Twenty years ago cinema was about the representation of the real (which does not mean the real itself, cinema is always a construction) today however the audiences understand that what they are looking at is not trying to imitate reality but that the world constructed has rules of it´s own. (not to mention today society constantly interact with virtuality). Considering the current paradigm (such a grown up word) it makes sense for the virtual image to reveal itself as it is, an aesthetic construct.

Image then are stylized to expose the construction as a tale, a comic adaptation, a story or whatever.

Harry Potter has the worse CGI for a kino series

it looks better than current capeshit, but it's still cartoonish cgi porn

>I like shit
>more people like shit now

>guy sounds like he's about to start crying
>pronounces the "t" in often
>thinks avatar looks real
>"I did a lot of research; couldn't come up with anything; here are my theories"
>"movies that use CGI predominantly are bad"
>loves avatar for being predominantly CGI
>nope.mkv
Why would you link this clickbait garbage?

>Is CGI getting worse?
In the technological sense, it isn't. Technology is always improving. CGI comes down to budget, time constraints, skill and effort. Generally speaking, effort is the first casualty followed closely by skill.

see

this

but avatar looks real

Attached: POVtiri.webm (1280x720, 1.27M)

The Abyss was peak

lolwut?

Attached: district_9.jpg (518x755, 66K)

the abyss was fantastic, but the surfacing alien thing at the end was shit even then

Fucking lulz

This entire clip is stirfried shit on every level

>porn
Sci-fi porn maybe

Attached: screwyou.gif (480x480, 2.66M)

capeshit-like porn

I honestly have no idea what your post and that pic are trying to say

this
I'm curious to see what people's reaction to it will be 20-30 years from now.