Alex Roman's CGI

Amazing.

I feel, however, that he might have been able to do it quicker (it apparently yook 2 1/2 months) if he'd just use a slow-mo camera and an artist to produce ceramic fruit, or whatever. But what do I know...
 
Just stunning… I'd seen his The Third & The Seventh before, didn't realise it was the same guy til the end. I'd love to see him do something with a story - beautiful though they are, those images seem a little wasted on an advert.
 
Wow...that is some amazing CG. Truly photoreal...no joke. I almost don't believe that ALL of it was CG...I need proof.

:)

That must have taken forever to render with that quality of radiosity.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Yep, why you'd pay a high dollar CGI artist to spend 2.5 months on something you could shoot in an afternoon for 1/20th the budget is a little beyond me.
Click to expand...

What?! How on Earth are you supposed to shoot a bunch of lemons falling in slow motion. That's just impossible!

Why? Because this dude just made the best demo-reel ever, and some sucker actually paid him to do it. Only the imagination limts us from finding reasons to use this dude's talents, but I'm not sure that I'd use them for a bunch of falling lemons.

It is quite beautiful. Amazing, really.
 
"How on Earth are you supposed to shoot a bunch of lemons falling in slow motion"

High speed camera?

I'm biased, I just don't like this stuff. CGI is what you do when it's completely impossible, or economic suicide to do it "practical". If there is any way to create the effect in real time with real objects that's always preferable in my aesthetic. Just a philosophy I don't expect everybody to agree with it.
 
I agree, it's amazing, just not anything that holds much interest for me beyond "Wow, yeah, that's pretty cool". I'd never use it in a film.

I'm a cinema luddite. I want my films to look like they were shot in 1964 on a Universal backlot.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Yep, why you'd pay a high dollar CGI artist to spend 2.5 months on something you could shoot in an afternoon for 1/20th the budget is a little beyond me.
Click to expand...

If this were Roman's singular means of expression, his work of art not predicated on any kind of commercial contract to complete, then it has as much validity as Chuck Close creating super-realistic portraits with painted pixels when he could have easily accessed a 35mm camera to reproduce the same. If it were created specifically for a budgeted piece, then I would have to agree with you. It's a great testement to his skill but not the craftiest solution to a *problem* with a budget.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I agree, it's amazing, just not anything that holds much interest for me beyond "Wow, yeah, that's pretty cool". I'd never use it in a film.

I'm a cinema luddite. I want my films to look like they were shot in 1964 on a Universal backlot.
Click to expand...

Gonzo, this sensibility makes me happy : )

Seriously. I cannot argue that the work posted is nothing short of dazzling and beautiful, but the fact that it is all CGI (really?) doesn't make the content any better. At the end of the day, I think I will always gravitate to the likes of Gondry or Tarsem who make magic with nuts, bolts, smokes and mirrors.

I am NOT saying that there isn't a place for CGI, just that I am probably more a fan of live action, in-camera trickery when it is done right. Both are valid ways to create amazing images. I'm no CGI basher! More of a cheerleader for old-school craftiness.
 
I would have used nitrogen to freeze real lemons and the other stuff as well, then fired them out of air cannon and recorded with high speed camera. voila :) it might work.
 
Question: Where does "composting" fit in the CG definition.. is composting a submset of CG?


If I use after effects to manipulate LIVE ACTION footage in ways like this.. is that CG?

I site my example of "Rowans Cool Yak Hat" on vimeo (http://vimeo.com/16504908)
Not one FRAME is "real" though many of the elements are..

The girl was green scree, the fire was canned element, the background building was a 3d mash up of a 2d picture.. the particles are after effects.. etc..
 
wheatgrinder said:
Question: Where does "composting" fit in the CG definition.. is composting a submset of CG?


If I use after effects to manipulate LIVE ACTION footage in ways like this.. is that CG?

I site my example of "Rowans Cool Yak Hat" on vimeo (http://vimeo.com/16504908)
Not one FRAME is "real" though many of the elements are..

The girl was green scree, the fire was canned element, the background building was a 3d mash up of a 2d picture.. the particles are after effects.. etc..
Click to expand...

Mmmm, no. In your example, not one shot is 100% live-action -- they all have some kind of CG element. But in the previous example, not one shot is even .01% live-action. There's a difference between having CG incorporated into a shot, and having a shot that uses no live-action whatsoever.
 
It seems to me the next frontier in CGI will be a PERFECT representation of the human face and voice, with all of the millions of intricate sub-muscular variations as a person talks and reacts. Every human I've ever seen done by CGI is obviously and easily recognizable as not "real.". There is no way I could tell that Rowan's lemons or crystals did not actually exist.
 
Adeimantus said:
It seems to me the next frontier in CGI will be a PERFECT representation of the human face and voice, with all of the millions of intricate sub-muscular variations as a person talks and reacts. Every human I've ever seen done by CGI is obviously and easily recognizable as not "real.". There is no way I could tell that Rowan's lemons or crystals did not actually exist.
Click to expand...

I would say that this is probably proof that the technology and skill is out there to accomplish a realistic moving 'replica' of a human face.

The reason why you can always tell when someone is not real, but CGI is probably for a combination of two reasons:

The Uncanny Valley

Also, a lot of projects have suffered from trying to make something look too much like a real human, resulting in everyone being totally creeped out (The Polar Express, anyone?). So I don't think it's something people really go for as much, better to have cartoony CGI characters than creep out your audience so much that they hate the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top