The photo-realism of Rango's CGI is astounding

Theodebernacius

Theodebernacius

I thought I could always distinguish CGI from real photography. But after watching Rango I think the line between the 2 is now definitively blurred.

See for yourself. These are 2 screengrabs:

6134727532_205469705e_b.jpg


6134729720_5d4c72ed86_b.jpg




Soon the job of production designer will be done by a computer guy with a digital library of locations, props, etc...
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Theodebernacius said:
Soon the job of production designer will be done by a computer guy with a digital library of locations, props, etc...
Click to expand...

Have you seen "Avatar"?

That being said, yes, the CGI in "Rango" is pretty amazing. Well, at least the non-creature animations are. I found the creatures to be kind of off-putting. Fun movie, though. Love the first 15-minutes.

Anyway, what I really meant to say is that though the above is true, I don't think real-life production designers need fear for their jobs, any more than real actors/actresses need to. I think fake, computer-generated stuff is only needed when you can't do the real thing, in the real-world. Otherwise, real-world stuff is almost always better. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I don't think real-life production designers need fear for their jobs, any more than real actors/actresses need to.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. Even if someday, we end up making all the films in computer, and all motion capture, Avatar style, the set designers would still be set designers. Difference being, instead of telling the crew hands to move this chair here and add another table their, he/she would be telling a computer guy to do it.

And besides, software's always easy to learn, it's the trained artistical eyes that makes good "real-life production designers". with a 3 week computer workshop or something they could quickly turn to good "virtual production designers". :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Have you seen "Avatar"?

Anyway, what I really meant to say is that though the above is true, I don't think real-life production designers need fear for their jobs, any more than real actors/actresses need to. I think fake, computer-generated stuff is only needed when you can't do the real thing, in the real-world. Otherwise, real-world stuff is almost always better. :)
Click to expand...

I've seen "Avatar". I thought it had a heavy CGI feel. But it could have been because they were trying to depict an imaginary world while "Rango" was depicting our familiar recognizable world. If the "Rango" CGI team had tried a create an imaginary planet maybe I would have found it artificial too. Actually I'd love to see that. It would be an interesting challenge for them.

I was thinking you could have real actors in complete green screen environment and then call a computer guy to fill all the rest around them. That would be the end of all those pesky cinematography problems like over-exposure and stuff. At first it would be costly to build the library of locations, props, etc. But once it's done it can be reused with minor modifications from movie to movie.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I absolutely LOVED this film. I thought it looked way better than so many of the 3D movies and it was only in 2D. Goes to show what a great cinematographer and animation team can create these days.

it's also very much a filmmaker's film regarding all of the story and character references. Good stuff. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top