1993 CGI still looks real compared to today's CGI.
>Were they just better artists?
1993 CGI still looks real compared to today's CGI
Charles Murphy
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
reelfilm.kodak.com
twitter.com
Gavin King
They tried harder, unlike the Jews of today. They think shinier means more realistic.
Grayson Campbell
Grain adds a lot and it makes CGI blend with the movie.
Gabriel Reyes
Avatar looks better
Lucas Rogers
better framing
POV perspective
no jump cuts
atmospheric perspective
realism rather than glitz
Luis Taylor
The main difference from what I can tell is a lack of reliance, CGI was a crapshoot back then and such a new technology that it was only ever really supposed to be used as an enhancer, not a backbone of your special effects.
Jurrasic Park is mostly helped out by the practical effects being timeless, there are still mistakes and messy shots but there was more attention put into the CGI they did use to make sure it didn't look stupid.
The way I would compare it is if you look at a modern film that has CGI like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, there's quite a lot of CGI in it, in surprising ways too, but it's never used as the backbone, it's always a piece of set dressing, some weather effects, a little more snow here or there, there are only a couple moments that rely on it heavily and they hide it by having the scenes take place at night and in the dark. CGI works well when you don't even notice it.
Whereas if you look at ANY Marvel film there are dozens of laughable scenes that are simply lazy, because of an attitude of "we'll fix it in post" or just a lack of experience on the part of the directors.
Elijah Diaz
Jace Russell
It was more expensive and the artists were unique
now it's cheap sweatshop factories that don't care about shit
Chase Cook
This. People doing CGI back then took pride in their artistry. Now it's all done by drones working for minimum wage.
Gabriel Roberts
>This. People doing CGI back then took pride in their artistry. Now it's all done by drones working for minimum wage.
This
Some evidence of that is the one T-Rex scene where the T-Rex bites the tire. Not only is the T-Rex CGI (obviously) and looking great....but so is the jeep, something most people don't even notice. That's where the artistry comes in. These people were true artists in that they understood the visual medium, lighting, and animation, and CGI artists secondary. The computers were a tool, just another paint brush to get the effects they wanted and knew would look great.
Mason Price
Why can't film continue to be used for movies anymore over this digital trash?
James Bell
This is actually wrong. Modern CGI is just fucking bad. They don't put work into it.
Jaxson Adams
Chase Sanchez
Landon Morales
It is, in fact sometimes you won't even notice a movie was shot on film until you check.
Jacob Torres
This
Brandon Edwards
NAH you can actually see its quite bad
the reflections are all wrong
a lot of the time the skin is super plastic-y and weird
that being said JP's CG does hold up quite well but thats mostly down to spielberg being a good director that used cg the same way someone would use special fx
thats it lol
Dylan Young
the best in that scene is the mud as it's walking also the rain hitting it looks great
Luis Ward
Honestly, the CGI in JP looks better than the models. The dinosaur robots in JP are very mechanical and unrealistic. The CGI is where the movie excels.
Brody Roberts
Modern CGI just looks like Pixar
Hunter Sanders
You nailed it the "atmospheric perspective." There's so much of an attempt to make everything super clean for hd that they make everything too clean, clear, and bright. It's like people don't even bother being inspired by real locations, they just think they can render some mountains and some sky/clouds but forget about all the moisture and fog etc.